What's the true end goal of banning abortion? (education, abuse, government)

[vkhmini]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

By that same logic, an infant or toddler not capable of self-support and utterly dependent on someone else for food, clothing, shelter, etc., isn't a human. So why can't they also be killed at will if their mothers deem them an inconvenience?

Very good question. I'll bet that poster is glad their parents didn't find them to be too great an inconvenience to support.

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Abortion is a moral issue.

The OP's question, as posed, takes a consequentialist tact.

And as we all know, consequentialism can be used to justify any act.

In my experience, I have found those that oppose abortion are largely deontologists.

FirebirdCamaro1220 fails to make the distinction between religious absolutists and mainstream deontologists.

Moreover, the "hypothesis" presented by FirebirdCamaro1220 is essentially a combination of ad hominem, slippery-slope and straw man fallacies.

Ok, so a deontologist is someone who believes that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. In the case of abortion, they would posit that its moral since the right to do so is codified rather than the consequence which is presumably a dead baby, which for the scope of this discussion feel free to define a fetus as a eventual baby. I am trying to understand what leap you took next, so is it a "bottom up" approach so they feel abortion to be wrong but their ethics tells them its moral as long as its legal therefore they seek to make it illegal? Its a huge stretch and moreover that doesnt make them deontologist as it is also unethical to seek to destroy something moral for your own personal preference, its 101 you dont get to which rules to follow or not follow. I guess in a developmental psychology lens, building that narrative to seek to change culture to assure permanent state change in a binary sense, I can see that, but what is your initial incentive to do this, which is where the deontology angle does not fit in.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Do you know what a parasite is? As cold as it sounds, that is what a child ends up being to an already impoverished person who didn't want to be pregnant to begin with. As I already mentioned, it takes roughly $10,000/year to raise a child adequately

Originally Posted by sub

By your own logic, the entire welfare state is full of 'parasites' (not a word I'd personally use). Are they to be aborted as well?

Good point.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by sub

Seriously?
I have no intentions other than warn people that if they engage in certain activity they might get pregnant.
That's a pretty big deal and a huge responsibility.
Even if they decide to go for an abortion, they should know there might be hefty emotional baggage to carry around with them for the rest of their life.
It's all about educating people, because apparently we as a society are doing a very poor job of that.

My fiancee had an abortion 14 years ago, still doesn't regret it and if she had it to do again, wouldn't do it any different.

She was 19, and her boyfriend at the time was unemployed by choice and physically abused her constantly. She shouldn't have had to "take responsibility" for that and have a constant reminder of the guy who regularly beat her and cheated on her

And yes, she broke up with him afterwards. It was her wake up call

[vkhmini]

Originally Posted by sub

This argument makes them mad, but it's a very valid one to make.

Notice the non-response you get.

Ayep.


This means "argument failing spectacularly".

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Good point.

Don't bring social darwinism into this thread, it's off topic

[BaptistFundie]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Pro lifers (a misnomer if I ever heard one) will tell you it's about protecting unborn fetuses, but that is not true, as they don't give two farts what happens to the unwanted children after they're born.

That seems kind of judgmental. You really can't say that for me, you don't know me. You don't know others. You are simply repeating what you've heard from others.

I posit that the real end game is using fascist means to reverse the sexual revolution of the 60s&70s, to put an end to extramarital recreational intercourse, as they most likely believe that if pregnancies can no longer be legally terminated, that women will wait until they're married to engage in intercourse.

I'd be interested to hear any rebuttals of my hypothesis...

Right. People used the same logic to argue for slavery.

[vkhmini]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

My fiancee had an abortion 14 years ago, still doesn't regret it and if she had it to do again, wouldn't do it any different.

She was 19, and her boyfriend at the time was unemployed by choice and physically abused her constantly. She shouldn't have had to "take responsibility" for that and have a constant reminder of the guy who regularly beat her and cheated on her

And yes, she broke up with him afterwards. It was her wake up call

Was she forced into this relationship? Did she not choose to be with this person? Consequences.

[evilnewbie]

Democrats aren't self supportive and are dependent on other people... Can we end them?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Fetal homicide laws exist for women who WANT their fetus to come to term. You're being pedantic and grasping at straws

You're wrong. There is no legal distinction whatsoever between some fetuses and others in regards to which are considered a person and to which homicide laws apply, and which aren't considered a person.