Why is abortion acceptable?

[calamity]

lol...

IMO, we have too many people already. No reason to force someone into bringing another one in the world. Maybe anti-aborts should focus on the kids who are living and in need instead of those which exist only in someone else's belly.

 

[Daisy]

IMO, we have too many people already. No reason to force someone into bringing another one in the world. Maybe anti-aborts should focus on the kids who are living and in need instead of those which exist only in someone else's belly.

OR...women could act more responsibly and not spread their legs for any Tom, Dick, or Harry that comes along...

 

[Bucky]

Re: Because abortion law hadn't kept up with medical advances

Roe v. Wade is a ruling to balance the woman's right to a medical procedure (under privacy) with the state's concern for the next generation of citizens. That's why the viability of the fetus is the measure of when the fetus can be freely aborted, when the state can begin to legislate, & when the state can forbid abortion (except for the health/life of the woman).

moral line between good and bad is simply birth? - No, it's not a moral issue in Roe. The viability of the fetus marks when the fetus goes from fetus to person, from the legal point of view. A viable fetus is a person, per Roe, & is therefore entitled to certain rights.

I haven't looked @ Singer's take on abortion.

I have read the Consitution. Can you tell me where in the Constitution that gives a right to privacy to kill a baby? A right to privacy doesn't extend towards killing a baby.

 

[calamity]

Re: Because abortion law hadn't kept up with medical advances

I have read the Consitution. Can you tell me where in the Constitution that gives a right to privacy to kill a baby? A right to privacy doesn't extend towards killing a baby.

No one is allowed to kill a baby. But, they are allowed to remove a fetus from their body after PRIVATELY consulting with a doctor.

 

[Bucky]

IMO, we have too many people already. No reason to force someone into bringing another one in the world. Maybe anti-aborts should focus on the kids who are living and in need instead of those which exist only in someone else's belly.

Factually, incorrect:

The number of babies being born in the United States continues to fall, with the birth rate reaching a new record low in 2017, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Last year, about 3.8 million babies were born in the U.S., which is 2 percent lower than the number born in 2016, and the lowest recorded number of births in 30 years, according to the report.

What's more, there were about 60 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, which is 3 percent lower than the rate in 2016, and the lowest recorded rate since the government started tracking birth rates in 1909.

US Birth Rate Hits All-time Low: What's Behind the Decline?

 

[calamity]

Factually, incorrect:



US Birth Rate Hits All-time Low: What's Behind the Decline?

We already have too many people on earth for it to be sustainable. That's obvious. So, a falling birthrate may be our only hope as a species. And, some really smart people are already suggesting it's too late.

One thing is for sure, the time will come when billions begin to die off. I'd rather kill a few million fetuses than see that.

 

[Bucky]

Isnt it morally hypocritical to take away the bodily sovereignty & self-determination of women to give the exact same things to the unborn? How is the unborn 'more' deserving?

How is it 'more' moral to force women to remain pregnant against their will?

These responses seem robotic from the same people. This type of thinking comes from a position that there is some sort of unjust male dominance on the female reproduction system.

You ask any man that goes through a divorce and tell me the system isn't stacked against that man. Tell me how is it just to force a man to pay alimony towards his ex-wife the rest of his life, even if they didn't have a child together? Now that is a sexist ruling.

How about the fact that many women believe that women cannot consent to sex if she is drunk? The idea that someone merely accused of rape or sexual assault is automatically guilty without due process. It is tough being a man these days. The mere accusation of rape or sexual rape can destroy a man's life.

And when you talk about the 'bodily sovereignty & self-determination of women' you are not (a) separating a blastocyst from a fully formed fetus and (b) not differentiating a woman from a girl. What we know is that a girl under the age of 16 cannot give sexual consent. So you assume she is mature enough to decide on life or death decisions regarding the life of her baby?

I don't know if you remember but being a young boy or girl was a wild emotional ride. It can be a confusing time finding yourself as a person. Your decision making is often clouded. It is good to have decisions being made for you by an adult in these situations.

 

[Bucky]

Re: We don't know enough to choose wisely; it may be beyond us politically/socially, even if we do k

Why is forcing a woman to be an incubator acceptable?

A woman by nature is born to be an incubator. That is her natural purpose as a mammal. Tell me how many males in any animal species give birth?

I didn't make the rules. That's just how life is produced. We live in a country where women do not have to be forced to become incubators. The choice of being pregnant is voluntary unless you are raped.

Once again, I am trying to separate aa blastocyst from a fully formed fetus. I do not believe a blastocyst is deserving of human rights but to say a fully formed fetus is not as well? That is barberic and heathenistic.

 

[Logician Man]

Re: We don't know enough to choose wisely; it may be beyond us politically/socially, even if we do k

A woman by nature is born to be an incubator. That is her natural purpose as a mammal. Tell me how many males in any animal species give birth?

I didn't make the rules. That's just how life is produced. We live in a country where women do not have to be forced to become incubators. The choice of being pregnant is voluntary unless you are raped.

Once again, I am trying to separate aa blastocyst from a fully formed fetus. I do not believe a blastocyst is deserving of human rights but to say a fully formed fetus is not as well? That is barberic and heathenistic.

define 'fully formed'

 

[southwest88]

Re: There are lots of resources available, & that's a good thing

I said "If I was in poverty ..." not I was in poverty

The point stands - age 18 is much too late to start formal education.

 

[Bucky]

Re: We don't know enough to choose wisely; it may be beyond us politically/socially, even if we do k

define 'fully formed'

I choose not to answer that question because I do not want to get into the weeds about abortion.

I think the more relevant question is why is it acceptable that there are those that believe a fetus at any stage of its evolutionary period is not deserving of any rights. A fetus, once it is viable, has the same future, life prospects as that of a newborn.

 

[Idiometer]

Re: We don't know enough to choose wisely; it may be beyond us politically/socially, even if we do k

The acceptability, the morality, of abortion is between the woman, her doctor, and whatever deity she may believe in, if any. It is no one else's business.

 

[Logician Man]

Re: We don't know enough to choose wisely; it may be beyond us politically/socially, even if we do k

I choose not to answer that question because I do not want to get into the weeds about abortion.

I think the more relevant question is why is it acceptable that there are those that believe a fetus at any stage of its evolutionary period is not deserving of any rights. A fetus, once it is viable, has the same future, life prospects as that of a newborn.

The fetus does have rights, which it gets from the host,( the mother ) per the law of the land.

 

[MrPeanut]

Re: We don't know enough to choose wisely; it may be beyond us politically/socially, even if we do k

I choose not to answer that question because I do not want to get into the weeds about abortion.

I think the more relevant question is why is it acceptable that there are those that believe a fetus at any stage of its evolutionary period is not deserving of any rights. A fetus, once it is viable, has the same future, life prospects as that of a newborn.

Setting aside the point that viability isn't even always clear, if you believe a fetus has some human rights does that include the right to hurt another person? I view the issue more as protecting the rights of the person that is responsible for carrying on with the pregnancy. I do think that there is a moral struggle involved in this, but it certainly isn't one sided.

 

[Bucky]

How "moral" is it to give a woman fewer bodily autonomy rights than we give a corpse?

Don't you believe that at some point in the pregnancy there is some voice that says "oh crap, I am pregnant, this baby is coming out, there is no turning back."

If are skydiving, you can back out at any time before actually skydiving. But once you actually jump off you can't all of a sudden change your mind at that point. Some people consider that non-reversal momement the birth of the baby. I consider it a little bit earlier.

 

[calamity]

Don't you believe that at some point in the pregnancy there is some voice that says "oh crap, I am pregnant, this baby is coming out, there is no turning back."

If are skydiving, you can back out at any time before actually skydiving. But once you actually jump off you can't all of a sudden change your mind at that point. Some people consider that non-reversal momement the birth of the baby. I consider it a little bit earlier.

Why do you believe what a mother does with her fetus is any of your goddamned business?

 

[minnie616]

Re: Because abortion law hadn't kept up with medical advances

I have read the Consitution. Can you tell me where in the Constitution that gives a right to privacy to kill a baby? A right to privacy doesn't extend towards killing a baby.

Abortion is not the killing of a born baby.
It is the ending of pregnancy before live birth.

We have a right to personal autonomy.

From the following Live Science article:

Constitutional rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.


The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:



No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

 

[Old Sarge]

I am a man, and sure as hell would not want a bunch of women in DC telling me what I can do with my body. So why should a bunch of old white guys in DC be allowed to tell a woman what she can do with hers.

No one is pro abortion, it should be a womens last option not the first. But I am pro choice, and it should remain so.

What about the body inside the woman? By your definition the woman has the right to decide who lives or dies. That sport is being judge, jury, and executioner. Aren't you glad your mother took the high road?

I am not saying all abortion should be illegal but there should be reasonable limits other than a whim.

 

[minnie616]

What about the body inside the woman? By your definition the woman has the right to decide who lives or dies. That sport is being judge, jury, and executioner. Aren't you glad your mother took the high road?

I am not saying all abortion should be illegal but there should be reasonable limits other than a whim.

First of all women do not chose an abortion on a whim.
Most were using birth control ( over 65 percent of all US women of childbearing years use artificial birth control consistently.)
Therefore the woman was saying no to a pregnancy.

Secondly. Over 91 percent of abortions in the US take place during the first trimester.

 

[soylentgreen]

I

I just find it odd how some people can morally justify aborting a pre-birth baby that could live outside the womb,

. I do not believe once an egg is fertilized that doesn't constitute a human being with rights.

The morally unacceptable part here is the dishonest switch.

The argument starts with a child nearing birth and ends with an egg being fertilised. Two completely different stage that are dealt with in two completely different ways.

The former is a rare happening where the life of child or mother is in peril. As much as can be done to save the childs life is done.
The latter is a simple medical procedure that should be a discussion between doctor and woman and not a political issue for the pro life to dbe as dishonest as they are in the op with.

 

[Bucky]

First of all women do not chose an abortion on a whim.
Most were using birth control ( over 65 percent of all US women of childbearing years use artificial birth control consistently.)
Therefore the woman was saying no to a pregnancy.

Secondly. Over 91 percent of abortions in the US take place during the first trimester.

That's quite a generalization of women. So ALL women do not abort a fetus on a whim?

 

[Lursa]

Re: "Human" is the wrong issue, it's "person"

Roe v. Wade recognizes the fetus as a person legally, once the fetus is viable - meaning that it can be born safely.

Not quite true...it's not legally a person until born. And states are not bound to any decisions regarding viability, some have chosen not to set any gestation limits on abortion.

 

[Stopandthink]

Isn't it morally hypocritical to say abortion is simply a health issue/procedure and has zero ethical implications?

I just find it odd how some people can morally justify aborting a pre-birth baby that could live outside the womb, yet find aborting a baby after birth murder. That fetus pre-birth has exactly the same prospect, future and life as a baby just newborn.



Abortion, by Peter Singer

So the moral line between good and bad is simply birth? That does not seem correct IMO. I am no pro-life nut. I do not believe once an egg is fertilized that doesn't constitute a human being with rights. That's a silly argument. But to say a fetus that is viable is not deserving of rights is equally silly.

IMO if you morally can justify aborting a fetus that is 9-months old, viable to be born, you most likely justify some form of infanticide and killing a human in some circumstances, which IMO is still morally reprehnsible.

I definitely think this is worth discussing. I have received pm's here that said I shouldn't be discussing abortion because I am a man. That is BS. This is a moral issue. Just because I am a man should not disqualify me from discussing abortion!

You’ve notice by now you’re not going to get an honest answer to your question from the pro abortion crowd because you’ve identified that the root problem with legal personhood is that it is lacks scientific common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

These responses seem robotic from the same people. This type of thinking comes from a position that there is some sort of unjust male dominance on the female reproduction system.

What does anything in my post have to do with men? I'm discussing the effects on women of laws that are based on a Constitution that applies to everyone and a legal system enforced by both men and women.

Are laws 'robotic?' Is the recognition of personal liberty, bodily sovereignty, self-determination 'robotic?'

If you want something erroneously and continually 'robotically' regurgitated in this sub-forum, it's "oh the innocent babies!" as if they hold a value greater than women.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: We don't know enough to choose wisely; it may be beyond us politically/socially, even if we do k

Abortion is the easy way out in shirking one's personal responsibility for one's actions...

Abortion is very responsible. It is not responsible to birth a child you cannot or will not care for properly. Or to pawn it off on others to raise.