Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are always exceptions to everything. Including women who love the fact that other women get abortions. Like, LOVE abortion. Beause they believe its empowering.
Are they norm? Doubtful. But they are an exception. So if you want to talk exceptions, let's talk about celebration of abortion and how wonderful some prochoicers think it is to ALWAYS get an abortion vs having a child. /eyeroll/
Or we could stick to the basics.
I do not believe it's an exception. If it was an exception we wouldn't have the problem getting universal health care passed that we do.
Pro-choice people are pro-life. They care about the life of the mother--you know, the only living, breathing, thinking, feeling, fully autonomous human being in this discussion. They believe that fully formed human has a right to her life. The opposition is more accurately termed pro-forced-birth.
Someone declaring, it's okay to abort if the conception is from incest or rape isn't forcing a birth, though - they're pro-choice but won't admit it. This might be why there are few pro-birthers and that most of the USA is pro-choice.
There are always exceptions to everything. Including women who love the fact that other women get abortions. Like, LOVE abortion. Beause they believe its empowering.
Are they norm? Doubtful. But they are an exception. So if you want to talk exceptions, let's talk about celebration of abortion and how wonderful some prochoicers think it is to ALWAYS get an abortion vs having a child. /eyeroll/
Or we could stick to the basics.
You're talking about anti-natalists...people who believe non-existence is always better than existence. I don't see that as particularly problematic. What's so bad about that? Those sorts of people won't wait to get abortions. There's no way they'd wait until the developing embryo has something like a brain, unlike the less decisive rest of us.
Or, if I misinterpreted you, perhaps you mean people who advocate always getting an abortion rather than giving the child up for adoption. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that either. They're probably also less likely to wait to get an abortion until the fetus or embryo has something like a brain than the less decisive rest of us.
You have a problem in that you don't have a logical thought process. You should correct that. You should figure out how to think more logically because it's probably hurting you in areas outside this forum too.
Your statement is not a reasonable comparison because of the following:
A: abortion can potentially be a kindness, depending on the circumstance. The fetus has no choice but to live unless its life is taken. That's something it's forced to do. All sorts of issues can result in lifelong struggle or suffering and abortions can make that avoidable. Executing you will probably not be a kindness because if you wanted your life to end you could have done it yourself. I would even argue that in some cases abortion would be a superior alternative to giving up for adoption. Living with a series of foster parents is a lot less ideal of a state than having parents. Such kids have a much higher crime rate than other groups. They're more likely to get psychological disorders.
B:. A fetus has no life built up around itself. It lacks the mind to have thought about death. It doesn't understand death. It can't fear it like born people can. It probably lives a very simple life. Born babies, on the other hand, are able to look around at the world and learn from it...presumably in something closer to a conscious way to how we see things. Fetuses will probably mostly be asleep. They might experience some kind of pain past some stage, possibly earlier than most people think...but regardless of that death would be something different for them than for adults, and probably born babies too.
C: People are going to get abortions regardless of whether it's legal or not. The only question is how many will happen and how dangerous they'll be. If they're illegal, some people will still get them. They'll just get them through drinking cleaning products or going to Miguel the illegal immigrant with the eye patch.
D: Before a certain stage of development fetuses or embryos don't have anything to lose anyway. They don't have minds before a certain point. They learn in the womb after a certain point, and I'd argue that makes them closer to us, but they'll still have different mental processes.
E: by not allowing abortion, we're forcing women to endure great hardship they have no interest in enduring for the benefit of a much simpler being we don't understand well...in a world where we routinely eat animals that are probably more aware of their surroundings.
You have not addressed the argument of justified preemptive murder.
Saying every pregnancy is a risk that will kill the mother to justify the abortion -- killing of the baby -- is 100% the same as arbitrarily murdering a human being to reduce your risk of being murdered in the future.
You wrote a whole lot but never addressed this point. /shrug/
You have not addressed the argument of justified preemptive murder.
Saying every pregnancy is a risk that will kill the mother to justify the abortion -- killing of the baby -- is 100% the same as arbitrarily murdering a human being to reduce your risk of being murdered in the future.
You wrote a whole lot but never addressed this point. /shrug/
In my earlier post I already explained how murder is different from abortion. That was the focus of my post, actually. You keep using the word "murder." Don't use the word "murder" if you don't mean "murder."
I do not believe it's an exception. If it was an exception we wouldn't have the problem getting universal health care passed that we do.
If you want to discuss the issues with universal health care, that deserves its own thread.
Do you believe in preemptive murder to ensure your own safety?
Because that is the argument .. pregnancy is so dangerous ... the fetus will kill the mother ... women die in childbirth .. so kill the baby, it solves that problem and reduces risk.
Do you believe that preemptive murder is a valid argument?
In my earlier post I already explained how murder is different from abortion. That was the focus of my post, actually. You keep using the word "murder." Don't use the word "murder" if you don't mean "murder."
Abortion is murder, actually.
The sole purpose of abortion is to kill babies. Otherwise women would still be pregnant after an abortion. Because pregnancy means having a baby.
If you want to discuss the issues with universal health care, that deserves its own thread.
Do you believe in preemptive murder to ensure your own safety?
Because that is the argument .. pregnancy is so dangerous ... the fetus will kill the mother ... women die in childbirth .. so kill the baby, it solves that problem and reduces risk.
Do you believe that preemptive murder is a valid argument?
No, that's not the argument. The argument is that killing something that's a lot different than I am in ways that I think could be argued to make its life less valuable than mine is worth reducing a risk to my health or life. Why is the life of a fetus probably less valuable than mine? It's asleep most of the time, if not all. It doesn't fear death. It doesn't have as much to lose as I do because it hasn't built up as much..and it isn't intelligent enough to know it wants to live yet. I am.
If you want to discuss the issues with universal health care, that deserves its own thread.
Do you believe in preemptive murder to ensure your own safety?
Because that is the argument .. pregnancy is so dangerous ... the fetus will kill the mother ... women die in childbirth .. so kill the baby, it solves that problem and reduces risk.
Do you believe that preemptive murder is a valid argument?
You do not get to narrow down the argument when it's already pages long. That you do, proves my point. Women abort in part because they can not afford the financial responsibly. Why would you not want to make that less of an issue?
You're talking about anti-natalists...people who believe non-existence is always better than existence. I don't see that as particularly problematic. What's so bad about that? Those sorts of people won't wait to get abortions. There's no way they'd wait until the developing embryo has something like a brain, unlike the less decisive rest of us.
Or, if I misinterpreted you, perhaps you mean people who advocate always getting an abortion rather than giving the child up for adoption. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that either. They're probably also less likely to wait to get an abortion until the fetus or embryo has something like a brain than the less decisive rest of us.
The reason why adoption isn't relative with unintended pregnancies is because adoption is for children needing homes, fetuses aren't adoptable, it's predatory to prey upon a vulnerable family to get their family member and obviously there has to be a birth and then a decision is made - not before. Agree, about brain activity - we choose to remove support when there isn't any.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
