after-birth abortion

[Exophase]

Serious question, if you're pro choice as we know it today, what makes you against this after birth abortion? In other words, what logically makes one OK, but not the other?

Not a troll question, as much as it sounds like one, I am just rolling the idea around in my head, and not coming up with much.

First, let me qualify that I don't support late term abortions. Fortunately, the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester (12 weeks), and very, very few are performed after 20 weeks.

There are a few differences I see between "after birth" abortion and early term abortion. An infant does exhibit signs of thinking and feeling that an early term fetus would not, especially in the first few weeks. There is potential for suffering and human euthanasia is hardly guaranteed to be painless. So I have empathy for one's potential suffering and termination of thought because I find meaning in these things. I don't find similar meaning in an early term fetus.

A born baby also has interacted with people in a way that their termination can impact them, particularly the mother whose physiology naturally bonds her to her baby - these bonds are much more likely to be well formed for an infant and mother than an early term fetus.

Finally, there's the matter of viability and burden. Allowing an unwanted fetus to grow places burden and even risk on the mother (although not very high in developed nations). The newborn, on the other hand, can usually be surrendered to the state without becoming a further burden on the mother.

 

[buckshot24]

Shocking that you would refuse to back up something you said.

We should probably go back to no one answering any of your questions until you back up your assertions. It took a while before but eventually you caved and made at least a token attempt to discuss an issue like an adult.

I am the final authority on earth on what I find wrong. There is nothing to "back up".

 

[buckshot24]

Of course it isn't. /S

You are making a point against something no one is arguing about. Its what you do. Someone says X and you respond with 5.

Go back to post 74 and read it. Zin made a point and I was only talking about that point.

 

[brycejones]

I am the final authority on earth on what I find wrong. There is nothing to "back up".

buckshatting the thread.

 

[fskimospy]

I am the final authority on earth on what I find wrong. There is nothing to "back up".

Why do you consider it wrong? That's what's being asked.

 

[buckshot24]

Why do you consider it wrong? That's what's being asked.

And I am declining to answer. You like to put assertions in my mouth and act like I am not supporting my assertions.

 

[fskimospy]

And I am declining to answer. You like to put assertions in my mouth and act like I am not supporting my assertions.

1. You stated you are 'certain enough' that abortion is wrong.
2. That is an assertion.
3. You have not supported it.

Looks like we're going to have to go with the buckshot protocol again. Until you support your assertion you don't get answers on anything you ask, at least not from me.

 

[buckshot24]

1. You stated you are 'certain enough' that abortion is wrong.
2. That is an assertion.
3. You have not supported it.

Looks like we're going to have to go with the buckshot protocol again. Until you support your assertion you don't get answers on anything you ask, at least not from me.

You can put me on ignore if you like. I find it ridiculous that I have to prove to you my personal certainty level. I am the only one who can say how certain I am so by definition I am the authority. You're trying to force onto me assertions I haven't made, which is dishonest.

 

[fskimospy]

You can put me on ignore if you like. I find it ridiculous that I have to prove to you my personal certainty level. I am the only one who can say how certain I am so by definition I am the authority. You're trying to force onto me assertions I haven't made, which is dishonest.

You don't have to prove to me your certainty level, I am asking you to offer supporting evidence as to WHY you are certain. You have been told this repeatedly but you continue to try and misrepresent what is being asked of you. Once again you're showing yourself to be a liar.

So let me know when you're ready to pony up.

 

[buckshot24]

You don't have to prove to me your certainty level, I am asking you to offer supporting evidence as to WHY you are certain. You have been told this repeatedly but you continue to try and misrepresent what is being asked of you. Once again you're showing yourself to be a liar.

So let me know when you're ready to pony up.

I am declining to answer your question. How hard is this? I am not obligated to answer you. The only thing I asserted (actually answered a question) was that I was "certain enough" that elective abortion was wrong.

Now you want me to tell you why I think it is wrong and I am declining to do so. Move on.

 

[fskimospy]

I am declining to answer your question. How hard is this? I am not obligated to answer you. The only thing I asserted (actually answered a question) was that I was "certain enough" that elective abortion was wrong.

Now you want me to tell you why I think it is wrong and I am declining to do so. Move on.

I know that's what you're doing, as it's what you always do. Likewise, I decline to answer any of your questions going forward until you do answer this very simple question. How fun!

 

[buckshot24]

I know that's what you're doing, as it's what you always do. Likewise, I decline to answer any of your questions going forward until you do answer this very simple question. How fun!

I'll be sure not to test you buy asking any then.

 

[Paratus]

I have personal regret and pain in this area.
Do you do that when you say it is wrong to murder another person?
Yes, I am certain enough that the elective abortion of a human being is wrong and a society would be better off not embracing death. When there is a choice between two individuals then the rules change.

I definitely wasn't making that point, so I'm not too concerned that I didn't illustrate it.

Most abortions aren't "necessary" is the problem. Just convenience. But we're getting closer to agreeing which is impressive. 3000 a day on average is taking a place. How many of those do you think is necessary? How many abortions daily do you think were happening before 1973?
The only reason I used "pro choice lynchers" is to try and illustrate that you don't need to be for something in order to be part of the problem.

If I said I believe people should have the choice on whether or not to kill another person would it matter that I don't personally kill?

Abortion is in most cases a necessity otherwise the woman would not be pursuing it nor would the doctor be performing one. In some cases it may be that after the fact an abortion wasn't necessary. Maybe that's your case. People can regret decisions that were made for the wrong reasons or even the right reasons at the time.

Being a parent is a huge responsibility. Deciding to have an abortion is the responsible thing to do after failed contraceptives, or being irresponsible, or even if circumstances changing.

There are many reasons that make it a necessity.
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf <-PDF
This study by the Guttmacher institute shows the top reasons for having an abortion:

• 25% - Not ready for a(nother) child/Timing is wrong
• 23% - Can't afford a child
• 19% - Already completed childbearing/others depend on me/children grown
• 7% - Medical issues with Mother or Fetus.

So I don't see how having an abortion for reasons like this is wrong. No one here is going to argue that killing a person isn't wrong, but I don't see how abortion before 20 weeks kills a person. Since you don't have an articulatable reason why it's wrong I don't see anyone agreeing with you.

 

[buckshot24]

Abortion is in most cases a necessity otherwise the woman would not be pursuing it nor would the doctor be performing one.

Just because people are doing a thing doesn't mean it is necessary. That ice cream cone I ate yesterday wasn't necessary but by this logic it was, since I did it.

I call all abortions where the life of the mother isn't in danger, elective. That is what I am referring to. Whether you agree with that is up to you.

 

[soulcougher73]

I still think the easiest way to shut pro-lifers up is make it a law where you have to declare you are pro-choice or pro-life. Pro-lifers get taxed more and must adopt 2 kids each from a woman who would have rather had an abortion. Nothing shuts people up more than money. If you are found lying about being pro-choice when you are really pro-life you are thrown in jail and fined some amount 🙂

Basically a put up, or shut up method.

 

[Paratus]

Just because people are doing a thing doesn't mean it is necessary. That ice cream cone I ate yesterday wasn't necessary but by this logic it was, since I did it.

I call all abortions where the life of the mother isn't in danger, elective. That is what I am referring to. Whether you agree with that is up to you.

Since the women who pursue an abortion are the final authority on earth on whether they find it wrong or necessary and the law finds it legal what you call it matters to no one except you.

Also things are necessary based on the reason behind doing them. If you were starving to death eating ice cream yesterday was a necessity. I however will take your word for it was not. Much like I take the word of the women who pursue an abortion that it is necessary for them. Since what they are doing is legal and not wrong in any articulable way there's no reason to not accept their word on it's necessity.

 

[Moonbeam]

M: But if you are a man this is a problem that doesn't exist for you because you will never have to make a decision in this area. So what is your skin in this game.

b I have personal regret and pain in this area.

M: Abortion is a reality fraught with profound moral issues that a secular society has decided as the best compromise between competing issues. Anybody who can feel will have some level of personal regrets and pain in any compromise that can satisfy nobody completely.

M: So tell me, do you advocate or do you enforce and impose the truth on others?

b: Do you do that when you say it is wrong to murder another person?

M: That would be advocacy, but that was not the question you asked only the one you invented to avoid answering the one I asked you. You deflected, as expected to return to your comfort zone regarding your moral ground.

M; Are you certain enough to impose your moral judgment over the sinner who wants an abortion? Just answer that question without your usual deflections.

b: Yes, I am certain enough that the elective abortion of a human being is wrong and a society would be better off not embracing death. When there is a choice between two individuals then the rules change.

M: You have accepted a compromise on abortion that encompasses the concept of utility, a meat machine kind of thinking. You are saying the life of the mother can permit the abortion of a living being, one who has not even had a few minutes of life, much less an opportunity to accept the savior. How can you live with that? Never mind, we still have a question that has not yet been answered as I predicted it wouldn't be.

The question is this. In a secular society governed by the laws of human beings, beings with diverse religious and secular opinions on what to do about the moral quandary presented by abortion, would you, if you had sole poser to decide the issue make it illegal for women to receive abortions in cases other than the life of the mother? I am asking if you are the hand of God, if your moral judgment is so certainly superior to that of other people that you, if you could, would prevent their capacity to do what you see as a sin. Just answer that. You understand I hope, that if you could and would exercise such judgment over other I would consider you to be Satin himself. Would you if you could, end abortion as a legal right and cause all the chaos and misery such a ruling would bring to society in addition to the fact that abortion would continue illegally and to reduce would require more and more of a police state?

Don't run away. All I want is a yes or no. Not, however, holding my breath.

 

[Moonbeam]

Since the women who pursue an abortion are the final authority on earth on whether they find it wrong or necessary and the law finds it legal what you call it matters to no one except you.

Also things are necessary based on the reason behind doing them. If you were starving to death eating ice cream yesterday was a necessity. I however will take your word for it was not. Much like I take the word of the women who pursue an abortion that it is necessary for them. Since what they are doing is legal and not wrong in any articulable way there's no reason to not accept their word on it's necessity.

buckshot has every right to be his own final authority and women have that same right. What I want him to tell me is whether, if he could, he would override my authority to commit an act he regards as evil. If you see a person about to commit an evil act and you are certain of the authority on which that act is evil, do you not have a moral duty to prevent the sinful person doing that act? When you are absolutely certain, isn't that action absolutely mandatory. There can't be any doubt about being wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

Would you be willing to limit abortions to only cases of suffering and physical defects? I'd take that.

Now there's a secular meat machine argument if I've ever heard one, like a prostitute willing to sell her body but haggling over the price, or a Satanist seeking the best deal for his soul. Congratulations. Can I offer an additional concession that women who are so blind to the truth had have abortions for the wrong reasons not be stoned to death?

 

[Paratus]

buckshot has every right to be his own final authority and women have that same right. What I want him to tell me is whether, if he could, he would override my authority to commit an act he regards as evil. If you see a person about to commit an evil act and you are certain of the authority on which that act is evil, do you not have a moral duty to prevent the sinful person doing that act? When you are absolutely certain, isn't that action absolutely mandatory. There can't be any doubt about being wrong.

Oh I agree he does and they do. I just don't think your going to get a clear answer from him.

I do think we have to many legislators in certain state governments who just know evil when they see it.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The only reason this debate still goes on is that some still consider women as property without the right to own their own bodies and control their own reproduction.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

PSA: no person, born or "unborn," enjoys a right to occupy the body of another person against that person's will. No person, born or "unborn," enjoys a right to forcibly extract the totality of their metabolic requirements from another person against that person's will. No person, born or "unborn," enjoys a right to inject another person with hormones and bodily waste against that person's will. Any such activity constitutes a violation of that person's fundamental right to bodily integrity, and the defenses of one's bodily integrity include deadly force when it is required. Any waiver of that person's fundamental right to bodily integrity must be explicit.

The so-called "pro-life" advocates intend to relegate a woman's pregnancy to a form of punishment for her audacity to have sex without the express purpose of procreation. They are nothing more than bitter, prude, moralistic misogynists that resent the advent of personal agency of women. Keep this in mind at all times. Thank you.

 

[Eli]

When you're not wanted, we can start with you. This is simply disgusting.

But I was wanted. You can't have it both ways. If someone doesn't want their kid and has decided to get an abortion, what is the difference? Yes, I was being extreme by my use of the word "required". But as long as it's readily accessible to those who need it, it's basically the same thing. Nobody is forcing you, even in my "required" world, since all you would have to do is say that you do indeed want the baby, if you didn't actually want an abortion.

I stand by what I said. It's not disgusting, it's reality. We don't need parents who don't want children raising said children, period. Instead of putting our fingers in our ears and going "LALALALA" we should probably, you know, face reality.

 

[michal1980]

PSA: no person, born or "unborn," enjoys a right to occupy the body of another person against that person's will. No person, born or "unborn," enjoys a right to forcibly extract the totality of their metabolic requirements from another person against that person's will. No person, born or "unborn," enjoys a right to inject another person with hormones and bodily waste against that person's will. Any such activity constitutes a violation of that person's fundamental right to bodily integrity, and the defenses of one's bodily integrity include deadly force when it is required. Any waiver of that person's fundamental right to bodily integrity must be explicit.

The so-called "pro-life" advocates intend to relegate a woman's pregnancy to a form of punishment for her audacity to have sex without the express purpose of procreation. They are nothing more than bitter, prude, moralistic misogynists that resent the advent of personal agency of women. Keep this in mind at all times. Thank you.

aren't you a judgmental ass.

the woman that made the CHOICE to have sex, should be fully aware of the consequences of such a choice so as to not have to choose to murder a person.

 

[brycejones]

aren't you a judgmental ass.

the woman that made the CHOICE to have sex, should be fully aware of the consequences of such a choice so as to not have to choose to murder a person.

You did an excellent job of proving his point.

404 murder not found : a fetus is not a person