How did pro-life vs abortion rights become a conservative vs liberal thing?

[cliftonite]

You would rather kill someone than cause someone else mental health problems?

It isn't my decision to make.

 

[fskimospy]

Correct, because I'm trying to bring the debate back to where it belongs: whether or not we're talking about a human being.

No, that's your framing.

In a society that can conscript you to put your life at risk, it's a strange argument that says it can't perform medical procedures against your will in some circumstances.

That's done because we've identified a compelling government interest in the defense of the state. Simply giving birth to a baby doesn't come close to that in my opinion.

As I put to Amused earlier, are you prepared to argue that a 30 week old fetus in utero is not a human being, but one born prematurely is?

It doesn't really matter to me either way. This is about human rights.

It's a fundamental crime against humanity, to permit the killing of one's children and euphemize it as a medical decision, to say nothing of a fundamental human right.

That's your framing again. It's a huge human rights violation for the state to seize control of a woman's body.

 

[Atreus21]

Of course it does. If they are all human beings then it would take a psychopath to save one instead of saving a million. Since they are not human beings, we choose the baby. There's really no way around this.

You've set up a false dichotomy and then said whichever you don't choose isn't a human being. That's nonsense.

All it proves is that we value the life of one baby over the lives of a million embryos. Just as I might value the life of my child over the whole of humanity if the chips were down.

 

[Atreus21]

It isn't my decision to make.

If it were, then:

Would you be willing to kill someone to maintain your own mental health?

 

[Zorba]

So you have no qualms about lack of healthcare, lack of environmental protections, or even deporting children back to countries where they may be much worse off? (ie. you don't care what happens to the baby after birth?)

He just said that abortion is worse than slavery, so no he doesn't care about the baby after it is born.

 

[Atreus21]

No, that's your framing.

My framing? You don't think it matters whether or not the fetus is a human being?

That's done because we've identified a compelling government interest in the defense of the state. Simply giving birth to a baby doesn't come close to that in my opinion.

We've also identified a compelling government interest in not killing its own citizens. Hence laws against murder.

That's your framing again. It's a huge human rights violation for the state to seize control of a woman's body.

Yet it can, does, and has done it before, and will do it again if necessary. Veterans of wars abound who have had the state seize control of their bodies.

No one in any society has the sort of autonomy you're talking about.

 

[fskimospy]

My framing? You don't think it matters whether or not the fetus is a human being?

No, it's just not an honest framing of the debate. Everything is a continuum, after all. We've already established that embryos are not human beings and fully born infants are, for example.

We've also identified a compelling government interest in not killing its own citizens. Hence laws against murder.

Fetuses are not citizens.

Yet it can, does, and has done it before, and will do it again if necessary. Veterans of wars abound who have had the state seize control of their bodies.

No one in any society has the sort of autonomy you're talking about.

Of course they do, don't be ridiculous.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I feel that I must do this now.

 

[umbrella39]

As I said, the republicans are doing a lot to undermine those issues (eg. see Scott Pruitt at EPA), so how is it "pro-life" to support them? (assuming in "life" you include everything after birth as well)

There seems to be a LOT of dodging of this inconvenient truth you, I, and several others keep pontificating... They not only champion but DELIGHT when policies are put into place that removes the basics of sustaining life away from these babies they demanded be born into a world where some can't wait to watch them suffer...

 

[Zorba]

Exactly. It doesn't say a thing about whether the embryos or the child are actually human beings, as eskimo says it does. It says who we prioritize in an emergency, when someone has to die.

And that may differ from person to person.

Okay, would a typical person risk their own life to save embryos or let them perish? I think most able bodied would accept some amount of self risk to save the life of an unknown child. But I sure as hell wouldn't run towards a burning medical truck to save the embryos.

 

[Zorba]

Roe v. Wade made the notable exception for cases impacting the health, not just the life, of the mother. Would you still compromise at the point of viability if that exception were removed?

We could debate shades of grey here, but no I don't believe a mother should have to endure significant health issues to care the baby to term. But I'm fine with that exemption not bring abused.

I think abortions by choice should be done prior to viability, but they should be allowed for medical reasons with the mother or fetus after viability.

I personally think Roe vs Wade was a good compromise between the rights of the mother and that of the fetus.

 

[abj13]

I can't think of any other response than to repeat myself. If there is a scenario of two people in which one has to die, or else both will die, then we have no choice - someone is going to die. The option of saving both is off the table at the outset. Nature permits us only to decide who will live.

Amazing. Its pretty clear why you choose to repeat yourself, you want to dodge the inconvenient logical corner you've painted yourself into. Not only do you rail against thought experiments (and you proceed to repeat it), you refuse to acknowledge the absurdity of arguing that personhood/individuality is tied to the environment. How does one lose protections and rights if you are in a different environment? Why should we only care about certain conceptuses and not all, when you also want to afford personhood to all fertilized eggs? If you really do believe that, then there's no reason why you should be dictating your absurd logic to others. Next thing you'll tell me that it is perfectly acceptable for me to kill someone lost in the middle of the desert because, well, they were going to die anyways. At least I can drink their blood and survive, according to your logic.

If that's the best you have, then I'll happily concede that I was using the term ectopic in place of tubal. Tubal pregnancies are 100% impossible to deliver, and the majority of ectopic pregnancies are tubal. There are extreme cases in which implantation occurs somewhere else in the abdomen.

Doubling down on ignorance isn't respectable. If you are going to claim something is 100% impossible, at least have the intellectual honesty to look it up. It has been well described of survival of tubal ectopic pregnancies (a few examples):

O'CONNELL CP. Full-term tubal pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1952 Jun;63(6):1305-11.
Augensen K. Unruptured tubal pregnancy at term with survival of mother and child. Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Feb;61(2):259-61.
Huang SC, Hsu TY. Term tubal pregnancy with a liveborn and healthy baby. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2007 Jan-Feb;10(1):69-71.

So the question remains. At what percent possible survival are you going to force the mother to carry the developing conceptus? 10% 1%? 0.01% What percent survivability does suddenly the conceptus have a personhood that must be respected, according to your logic?

 

[dank69]

Exactly. It doesn't say a thing about whether the embryos or the child are actually human beings, as eskimo says it does. It says who we prioritize in an emergency, when someone has to die.

And that may differ from person to person.

Would you run into a burning building to save a child if you knew there was a low chance of surviving? Many people would. Would you run into a burning building to save a tray of embryos if you knew there was a low chance of surviving? Very few people would, and the few that would would probably only do so if they were the parents or had a personal relationship with the parents, and even then only if it was not possible to replace them. Now you are no longer choosing between the two, but this illustrates the difference between the two. The tray of embryos in this situation is pretty close to equivalent to a tray of garbage.

 

[fskimospy]

Would you run into a burning building to save a child if you knew there was a low chance of surviving? Many people would. Would you run into a burning building to save a tray of embryos if you knew there was a low chance of surviving? Very few people would, and the few that would would probably only do so if they were the parents or had a personal relationship with the parents, and even then only if it was not possible to replace them. Now you are no longer choosing between the two, but this illustrates the difference between the two. The tray of embryos in this situation is pretty close to equivalent to a tray of garbage.

Yes, I don't understand why he's so desperately arguing against this obvious point. Actually I do, because it destroys his argument.

We all know for a fact that embryos are worth less than a human life. Not just a little less, but so much less that for all intents and purposes they are worthless in comparison. That means it makes zero sense to treat them both as equally deserving of protection.

 

[dank69]

Yes, I don't understand why he's so desperately arguing against this obvious point. Actually I do, because it destroys his argument.

We all know for a fact that embryos are worth less than a human life. Not just a little less, but so much less that for all intents and purposes they are worthless in comparison. That means it makes zero sense to treat them both as equally deserving of protection.

I mean, we could up the ante even more and say that if you run in to save something you will certainly die. You will be able to rescue them and they will be okay but you will die of injuries later. The person who ran in to save the child will be hailed as a hero. The person who ran in to save the embryos will be remembered as a fucking retard.

 

[dank69]

Let's bump it up even more! A mother is standing outside the clinic watching it burn down knowing her embryos are in there. Why isn't she running in? What kind of mother lets her own children burn to death without trying to save them? Get the fuck out of here Atreus.

 

[UNCjigga]

Devolve? That is the whole crux of the debate.

If the fetus is a human being, then killing it is wrong. If it's not, then kill it at your whim. Everything else involves getting into the weeds.

Agree to disagree. If both sides agree on the policy objective of reducing the # of abortions, and the Supreme Court already decided on the legality, then the debate is pointless.

With such a nuanced issue, the secular state cares less for moral/immoral or right/wrong than legal/illegal. At some point these women may be judged by a higher power for the decision they make--all we can do is our best to have fewer women faced with such a decision.

 

[JTsyo]

Abortion opposition is, and always has been tied directly to the control of women.

Throughout history, abortion has never been an issue (even in the bible where a lost pregnancy was equated as lost property while the life of the mother was equated to murder) until talk of women's suffrage started in the 1800s.

Followers have been duped by thinking it has anything to do with human life. Why? Because it seems to be the ONLY human life or rights they seem to support.

Abortion is a propaganda tool.

This is right. If conservatives truly wanted to reduce abortion they would be all for funding Planned Parenthood and other birth control that is shown to work instead of touting abstinence. They are entrenched in their views that the contradictions aren't obvious to them.

 

[Muse]

I understand how many political beliefs can either be seen as more of a conservative or liberal view but I just never understood the pro-life vs abortion debate. Why is it that if you support women’s right to abort a baby, you’re left leaning and if you’re pro-life you’re right leaning?

To me it's partly because of the evangelical Christians' pretty consistent stance against a woman's right to choose. And they are pretty consistently Republicans and have had an ever more powerful voice in that party.

- - - -
Einstein: God does not play dice!

Planck: Snake eyes!

 

[soundforbjt]

OP hasn’t made one post in this thread since he started it.

 

[Amused]

OP hasn’t made one post in this thread since he started it.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Puffnstuff]

What's wrong with that?

Maybe that's not the right question....😛

 

[ivwshane]

Agree to disagree. If both sides agree on the policy objective of reducing the # of abortions, and the Supreme Court already decided on the legality, then the debate is pointless.

With such a nuanced issue, the secular state cares less for moral/immoral or right/wrong than legal/illegal. At some point these women may be judged by a higher power for the decision they make--all we can do is our best to have fewer women faced with such a decision.

To add on to your point. I would say the discussion and the agreement between all parties could be and should be; how do we reduce the need for abortions in the first place?

That discussion is rarely had by the pro life side and the pro life side usually takes the position that things like sex education, free contraceptives, and birth control, shouldn't be allowed or they ignore those solutions entirely. Usually you can tell if the pro lifer actually cares about reducing/stopping abortions vs simply wanting to control women by their position on the above.

 

[MrSquished]

This is it in a nutshell