My angle on the pro-choice argument

This is obvious, but for the sake of clarity: My claim is that it is morally permissible for a woman to have an abortion, even if it is not medically necessary. People have a desire to be alive as opposed to dead & an aversion to harm. This is demonstrable even in infants, but the same is not always so for zefs. Fetuses do respond to stimuli. However, the point at which fetuses can feel pain is irrelevant on the topic of whether it is immoral to abort them at all or not because:

A) They rely entirely on the mother’s body, which can significantly impact her physically & financially in a negative way.

B) The ability to sense pain alone is not indicative of a will to live. Some people have a disorder called congenial analgesia, which inhibits their ability to feel pain. But these people still try to avoid harm coming to their bodies, & they aren't apathetic about life merely due to a lack of physical pain. What more, pain in fetuses during abortions can be mitigated if not eliminated by improved medical practices.

A fetus is completely reliant on the mother’s body to survive, it is a parasitic relationship by definition. Those who have already been born are not parasitic in this way, so there is no issue of prioritizing one person’s life & well-being over another’s. It’s impossible to value both lives equally; you either value the life & well-being of the fetus over the mother, or the mother over the fetus. Unlike the fetus, the mother is conscious. She has a will whereas the fetus does not, & that is at the core of why we value what the born want over the unborn. A woman does not owe the fetus a life at the cost of her health, livelihood, & potentially her life -- but it is virtuous if she grants it.

We are not morally obligated to allow anything to live solely because it is alive, even if such an organism has human DNA & diploid cells, & even if said organism has the potential to one day be conscious, enabling them to have an aversion to harm & the will to live. We are even morally justified in taking the lives of born people if they endanger the lives of innocent people (& there is no other solution, like therapy. No, I'm not entirely for capital punishment. Different can of worms, though).

Side note that yes, I am intentionally avoiding the usage of the words “baby” or “child” in place of “fetus” because I find it dishonest; people immediately imagine infants & not fetuses/embryos when those terms are used. Not only is this an appeal to emotion, but they aren’t the topic of discussion.

I find that much of the debate is based on arbitrary definitions. I think worth largely comes down to perceivable consciousness and the quality thereof, even if this implies the euthanasia of certain born humans. The inherent value we put on life is laughable and often irrational.

Good OP touching on some solid points.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

Click to expand...

Demoness said:

Side note that yes, I am intentionally avoiding the usage of the words “baby” or “child” in place of “fetus” because I find it dishonest; people immediately imagine infants & not fetuses/embryos when those terms are used. Not only is this an appeal to emotion, but they aren’t the topic of discussion.

Click to expand...

IMO this is a also good point. Esp the bold.

The use of "unborn" is acceptable, it's neutral and accurate and avoids unnecessary emotional manipulation.

It also saves on having to type out the different stages of pre-birth development if you are encompassing all of them in your discussion.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

IMO this is a also good point. Esp the bold.

The use of "unborn" is acceptable, it's neutral and accurate and avoids unnecessary emotional manipulation.

It also saves on having to type out the different stages of pre-birth development if you are encompassing all of them in your discussion.

Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons I use offspring a lot. It covers anything from zygote to elderly.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

maquiscat said:

That's one of the reasons I use offspring a lot. It covers anything from zygote to elderly.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I would agree with that also for that purpose.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

Click to expand...

Demoness said:

This is obvious, but for the sake of clarity: My claim is that it is morally permissible for a woman to have an abortion, even if it is not medically necessary.

Click to expand...

Definitely agree. A woman can choose to have an abortion for any reason that applies to her, including "I don't want to stay pregnant" and "I don't want a baby."

maquiscat said:

That's one of the reasons I use offspring a lot. It covers anything from zygote to elderly.

Click to expand...

I have started using the word offspring too sometimes, but only up to birth, when everyone agrees the human being is a baby.

OceanBlues1 said:

Definitely agree. A woman can choose to have an abortion for any reason that applies to her, including "I don't want to stay pregnant" and "I don't want a baby."

Click to expand...

If the woman knows she does not want or can't take care of a baby at the time she gets pregnant, she better not put off getting an abortion until it is too late to take the pills at home.

Blue Donkey said:

I have started using the word offspring too sometimes, but only up to birth, when everyone agrees the human being is a baby.

Click to expand...

Offspring is always accurate when referring to the humans biologically produced by a woman. And the man. I am the offspring of my parents.

It's common usage, for humans and other animals. Even plants.


There is no one right answer for most stages of human life...infant, baby, offspring, child, are all accurate for a one month old, for ex. That's why semantic arguments are used so commonly on this topic to muddy the waters and deflect from the actual issues involved.

And to me, that's why accuracy is important.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

Click to expand...

Y'know, I was expecting to be bombarded by opposing arguments. I am both flattered & disappointed at the same time, lmao.

Lursa said:

There is no one right answer for most stages of human life...infant, baby, offspring, child, are all accurate for a one month old, for ex. That's why semantic arguments are used so commonly on this topic to muddy the waters and deflect from the actual issues involved.

And to me, that's why accuracy is important.

Click to expand...

I try to be as thorough with my terms & definitions as possible to avoid this issue, because I loathe the dishonest semantics tap dance. It's such a waste of time, too.

Lursa said:

There is no one right answer for most stages of human life...infant, baby, offspring, child, are all accurate for a one month old, for ex. That's why semantic arguments are used so commonly on this topic to muddy the waters and deflect from the actual issues involved.

And to me, that's why accuracy is important.

Click to expand...

There simply are times when the semantics are important. Depending on the argument, the semantics between "father" and "dad" can be very important, for example.

maquiscat said:

There simply are times when the semantics are important. Depending on the argument, the semantics between "father" and "dad" can be very important, for example.

Click to expand...

Yes...that's when accuracy matters.

maquiscat said:

There simply are times when the semantics are important. Depending on the argument, the semantics between "father" and "dad" can be very important, for example.

Click to expand...

I am aware some people think you should only use "dad" to mean a man who actually cares about and for his kid, but without knowing how he feels when the woman gets pregnant, how important is typing a six-letter word?

Blue Donkey said:

I am aware some people think you should only use "dad" to mean a man who actually cares about and for his kid, but without knowing how he feels when the woman gets pregnant, how important is typing a six-letter word?

Click to expand...

I am only noting that there are contexts in which the semantics makes a difference, not that it matters all the time. In most cases, to continue the example, dad and father can be used interchangeably. But in some cases, the difference between them is very important. within the context of the topic, fetus and baby can be used interchangeably, in the cases where the mother is planning to keep the offspring, even though technically they are not the same, and in other cases, the difference is key.

Demoness said:

Y'know, I was expecting to be bombarded by opposing arguments. I am both flattered & disappointed at the same time, lmao..

Click to expand...

Just wait, they'll show up eventually.

Triton said:

I find that much of the debate is based on arbitrary definitions. I think worth largely comes down to perceivable consciousness and the quality thereof, even if this implies the euthanasia of certain born humans. The inherent value we put on life is laughable and often irrational.

Click to expand...

Thank you. This is one of the most honest posts I've read on the subject. I like that you apply your standards post birth and it clearly denotes the position you take. Many on your side of the argument seek to avoid this but you didn't. I think your stance is horrific but I admire your intellectual integrity and wish more on your side had either the stones or the intellect to do the same.

Ignatius said:

Thank you. This is one of the most honest posts I've read on the subject. I like that you apply your standards post birth and it clearly denotes the position you take. Many on your side of the argument seek to avoid this but you didn't. I think your stance is horrific but I admire your intellectual integrity and wish more on your side had either the stones or the intellect to do the same.

Click to expand...

Don't put me on the cross yet. I don't publicly voice this opinion for reasons that should be obvious, haha.

Triton said:

Don't put me on the cross yet. I don't publicly voice this opinion for reasons that should be obvious, haha.

Click to expand...

It is obvious and that's precisely the problem. I give you credit for the intellectual integrity you displayed. I wish more people would do the same.

Demoness said:

Y'know, I was expecting to be bombarded by opposing arguments. I am both flattered & disappointed at the same time, lmao.



I try to be as thorough with my terms & definitions as possible to avoid this issue, because I loathe the dishonest semantics tap dance. It's such a waste of time, too.

Click to expand...

I have a question based on an opposing argument. You said the baby in the womb relies entirely on the woman's body. You used the word "mother but that's not what the woman is at that point. So the question is why does that justify letting her kill the baby?

Ignatius said:

I have a question based on an opposing argument. You said the baby in the womb relies entirely on the woman's body. You used the word "mother but that's not what the woman is at that point. So the question is why does that justify letting her kill the baby?

Click to expand...

I thought you were supporting using accurate terminology? A woman does not abort a baby, she aborts an embryo or fetus.

And why does she need to justify that abortion? What authority demands that? In other words, 'who says' she needs to justify it? Why isnt her individual knowledge of her need enough?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

Click to expand...

Ignatius said:

I have a question based on an opposing argument. You said the baby in the womb relies entirely on the woman's body. You used the word "mother but that's not what the woman is at that point. So the question is why does that justify letting her kill the baby?

Click to expand...

No woman has to "justify" or explain her reason(s) why she has an abortion, to you or anyone else. Nor should she ever have to justify that choice, since it is her body that is affected by pregnancy. And there's no "baby" until there is a birth.

Lursa said:

I thought you were supporting using accurate terminology? A woman does not abort a baby, she aborts an embryo or fetus. And why does she need to justify that abortion? What authority demands that?

Click to expand...

None, the last time I checked.