Morality of abortion

[Aexodus]

For now it is not feasible to ask a fetus if he want to live with down syndrome, so it seems reasonable that it is his mother, being she the most affected conscious figure in this situation, who decides.

On the other side of the same coin, you can't ask the foetus if it wants to die either.

And is not a decision for both parents to make?

[The spartan]

If a person or persons don't want a baby they can take precautions or not have sex.

I know, isn't sex for pleasure so immoral and gross? Especially when women are enjoying themselves!

[Aexodus]

I know, isn't sex for pleasure so immoral and gross? Especially when women are enjoying themselves!

Oh come on. Condoms and other contraception exist for a reason and are readily available. What do you think he meant by ‘precautions’?

[fkizz]

I know, isn't sex for pleasure so immoral and gross? Especially when women are enjoying themselves!

This was a real fracturing point in 1700s and 1800s, were abortions were more banalized (despite higher birthrate) and times were more brutal, the condoms and pill we have nowadays would seem some kind of mythological high technology.

In a time where both condom, pill and day after pill are avaliable to literally anyone, it's a different league.

[basics]

For now it is not feasible to ask a fetus if he want to live with down syndrome, so it seems reasonable that it is his mother, being she the most affected conscious figure in this situation, who decides.

mishkin,

But most are not detected before birth so would you consider it a mother's right to have the newborn put down?

[Gaidin]

mishkin,

But most are not detected before birth so would you consider it a mother's right to have the newborn put down?

Nice red herring. Go create another thread about conditions not detected before birth if you want this question answered.

[Elfdude]

They are known as human rights, so yes, as well as-

Uh, I'm sorry they're not. Rights are a legalistic framework created and impressed upon individuals by the standing of said legal document. They are not inherent to the process of being. There are runaway consequences with your view and your political views would be massively indicted if we were to follow them through their logical consequences. For example, feeding children, housing children and raising children are a significant expenditure. If the individual giving birth can do none of the aforementioend who do you suppose does it? I don't suppose you support social welfare programs?

Can you explain why this isnt the case?

Yes. Number one, children do not have the same rights as adults. That's an absolute truth in the US. Number two, infants have even fewer rights. Number three, there's no plausible argument that we should impress upon a mass of cells it's own legal standing which simultaneously does not give rights to say a kidney or the pounds of skin which slough off of you on a daily basis. Traditionally Viability and Birth were used because they offer a very cut and dry answer to what is black and white when we're talking about what is actually little more than a shade of grey. In most countries and states you do not gain full access to your rights until 16, or 18, or 21, or 25.

I couldnt agree more.

Until you provide for the infrastructure required to raise the children in absence of forcing someone to carry it to term (Artificial womb + ample social funding for the appropriate raising of children) your point is rendered moot. More relevantly, the use of contraception is often not something any child is taught about in the US. Contraception costs a significant amount of money and sex is the highest biologically driven instinct we have. Animals will starve and maim themselves for access to sex. We are also animals albeit more aware of our situation. More importantly children raised in an environment absent of consistent care offered by parents perform significantly worse than those who aren't. I don't suppose you also support gay marriage, one of the biggest arguments for which was the ample surplus of orphans and the number of gay couples who were ready and willing to care for them but couldn't because many states prevented gay couple adoption through requiring marriage.

[Aexodus]

Uh, I'm sorry they're not. Rights are a legalistic framework created and impressed upon individuals by the standing of said legal document. They are not inherent to the process of being. There are runaway consequences with your view and your political views would be massively indicted if we were to follow them through their logical consequences. For example, feeding children, housing children and raising children are a significant expenditure. If the individual giving birth can do none of the aforementioend who do you suppose does it? I don't suppose you support social welfare programs?

Elfdude, if someone isn’t capable of having a child, then they don’t get pregnant.

Yes. Number one, children do not have the same rights as adults. That's an absolute truth in the US.

The only right we’re talking bout here is the right to life to life.

Number two, infants have even fewer rights. Number three, there's no plausible argument that we should impress upon a mass of cells it's own legal standing which simultaneously does not give rights to say a kidney or the pounds of skin which slough off of you on a daily basis. Traditionally Viability and Birth were used because they offer a very cut and dry answer to what is black and white when we're talking about what is actually little more than a shade of grey. In most countries and states you do not gain full access to your rights until 16, or 18, or 21, or 25.

A zygote is a separate human organism. Therefore human rights apply.

To compare that to a skin cell is quite incoherent.

It is not ‘grey’. A human life is not a grey area.

Until you provide for the infrastructure required to raise the children in absence of forcing someone to carry it to term (Artificial womb + ample social funding for the appropriate raising of children) your point is rendered moot.

Oh really. I was unaware that parenting wasn’t actually the responsibility of parents themselves.

More relevantly, the use of contraception is often not something any child is taught about in the US.

What? Everyone knows what contraception is by the time they come of the age of consent. And they know what sex far before that.

Contraception costs a significant amount of money

Condoms cost $0.50 each. Odd you don’t seem to know know that...

and sex is the highest biologically driven instinct we have.

And unprotected sex is not an inevitability, it is a conscious choice.

Animals will starve and maim themselves for access to sex.

I hold humans living in a society to a higher standard than wild animals, actually.

We are also animals albeit more aware of our situation. More importantly children raised in an environment absent of consistent care offered by parents perform significantly worse than those who aren't.

So we should just kill them then. Gotcha.

I don't suppose you also support gay marriage, one of the biggest arguments for which was the ample surplus of orphans and the number of gay couples who were ready and willing to care for them but couldn't because many states prevented gay couple adoption through requiring marriage.

What does this segment have to do at all with abortion.

Also, I’m fundamentally opposed to gay adoption as it happens.

[Elfdude]

Elfdude, if someone isn’t capable of having a child, then they don’t get pregnant.

Because humans are perfect. Got it. So when the real world starts to resemble this I'll take your points seriously, or do you actually have a solution to get there?

The only right we’re talking bout here is the right to life to life.

Right, and this right is not recognized to fetuses who are inviable outside of the womb. You earn it when you're no longer an obligate parasite.

A zygote is a separate human organism. Therefore human rights apply.

No, you want rights to apply. Currently no court that I know recognizes this argument.

To compare that to a skin cell is quite incoherent.

Hardly.

It is not ‘grey’. A human life is not a grey area.

You're just arguing semantics, call it what you will, a human life is not recognized as human until the whole obligate parasite phase is over.

Oh really. I was unaware that parenting wasn’t actually the responsibility of parents themselves.

So, your solution to killing a mass of cells is to force people who neither want to nor likely have the resources to raise children? That couldn't backfire in any possible way! Oh, romania called and they wanted me to tell you about the human trafficking black market which occurred where people literally sold their BORN children into slavery as an alternative because the government refused to cover them, charities had no space and they had no either no means or no interest in providing for the children themselves. Your child can be kidnapped today in a suburb and sold into a thriving black market as a sex slave because of the stupid decisions a country made half a century ago. Is that what you really propose?

That is madness.

What? Everyone knows what contraception is by the time they come of the age of consent. And they know what sex far before that.

Contraception is not taught in the US. So no, you're wrong. The easiest way to get rid of the necessity of abortion is to teach (thoroughly mind you) contraceptive use and give contraception away freely. Pass that and we'll talk about abortion. Otherwise sorry, I'm not fond of sentencing someone to 9 months of pregnancy because they were dumb.

Condoms cost $0.50 each. Odd you don’t seem to know know that...

Condoms in the US are rarely that inexpensive, grabbing them at the grocery store is usually about 5 bucks for 3. Even if someone has condoms they're terribly easy to up. I work in pediatrics, my entire role is working with children. As a doctor I can assure you go to any reproductive health clinic and they'll laugh at your naive assumptions about reproductive health.

And unprotected sex is not an inevitability, it is a conscious choice.

Right, and mistakes are not inevitable? Oh they are... well that one was easy.

I hold humans living in a society to a higher standard than wild animals, actually.

As do I. Nice attempt at a deflection though.

So we should just kill them then. Gotcha.

That's the short of it.

What does this segment have to do at all with abortion.

So you're happy with the unintentional consequences of your decision. Funny given your views on abortion.

Also, I’m fundamentally opposed to gay adoption as it happens.

You don't say? Children are kidnapped in suburbs because people with views like these got in control once. It's incredibly convenient that you don't get to take responsibility for your crappy viewpoints but you're more than happy to advocate for forcing someone to take responsibility for their own. Hypocrisy is a good look I suppose.

[Aexodus]

Because humans are perfect. Got it. So when the real world starts to resemble this I'll take your points seriously, or do you actually have a solution to get there?

Elfdude, I believe there are consequences for your own conscious actions.

Right, and this right is not recognized to fetuses who are inviable outside of the womb. You earn it when you're no longer an obligate parasite.

Actually, it is a right recognised in many American states.

No, you want rights to apply. Currently no court that I know recognizes this argument.

You don’t know a lot off courts then

Hardly.

Are you really saying it’s valid to compare a zygote to a skin cell. That is incredible.

You're just arguing semantics, call it what you will, a human life is not recognized as human until the whole obligate parasite phase is over.

Are you saying that a fetus is not human right up until the day of birth.

So, your solution to killing a mass of cells is to force people who neither want to nor likely have the resources to raise children? That couldn't backfire in any possible way! Oh, romania called and they wanted me to tell you about the human trafficking black market which occurred where people literally sold their BORN children into slavery as an alternative because the government refused to cover them, charities had no space and they had no either no means or no interest in providing for the children themselves. Your child can be kidnapped today in a suburb and sold into a thriving black market as a sex slave because of the stupid decisions a country made half a century ago. Is that what you really propose?

That is madness.

As someone who lives in a country where abortion is illegal, I can assure you that this does not happen.

Contraception is not taught in the US. So no, you're wrong.

Then it would seem there is quite an easy obvious solution then. Also I was unaware we were having a US-centric conversation. The morality of abortion is universal, and contraception is taught in the majority of western countries.

The easiest way to get rid of the necessity of abortion is to teach (thoroughly mind you) contraceptive use and give contraception away freely.

Whats with all the collectivisation mate? Contraception is cheap chill out.

Pass that and we'll talk about abortion. Otherwise sorry, I'm not fond of sentencing someone to 9 months of pregnancy because they were dumb.

It’s their own decision to get pregnant. Come on, when people have sex they know what they’re doing.

Condoms in the US are rarely that inexpensive, grabbing them at the grocery store is usually about 5 bucks for 3.

So they’re inexpensive then.

Even if someone has condoms they're terribly easy to up. I work in pediatrics, my entire role is working with children. As a doctor I can assure you go to any reproductive health clinic and they'll laugh at your naive assumptions about reproductive health.

Then that’s their fault for being incompetent with condoms isn’t it.

Right, and mistakes are not inevitable? Oh they are... well that one was easy.
*snip*
So you're happy with the unintentional consequences of your decision. Funny given your views on abortion.

I was unaware that having a child’s was the collective decision of society, therefore society as a collective should bear the consequence of it. Seems i didn’t get that memo. I must applaud you for your ability to relentlessly collectivise individuals.

The fundamental premise of your argument is that actions should not have consequences, and that people should have a get out of jail card in life. That’s just something where we’re gonna have to fundamentally disagree my friend.

You don't say? Children are kidnapped in suburbs because people with views like these got in control once. It's incredibly convenient that you don't get to take responsibility for your crappy viewpoints but you're more than happy to advocate for forcing someone to take responsibility for their own. Hypocrisy is a good look I suppose.

We only lifted the ban on gay adpotion four years ago, I can assure you, we survived

If someone can’t raise a kid, that is not my fault. The only thing ‘forcing’ them to have a baby is their own good/bad judgement and ultimately free will.

[Infidel144]

Contraception is not taught in the US. So no, you're wrong

Then it would seem there is quite an easy obvious solution then. Also I was unaware we were having a US-centric conversation. The morality of abortion is universal, and contraception is taught in the majority of western countries.

Condoms in the US are rarely that inexpensive, grabbing them at the grocery store is usually about 5 bucks for 3

So they’re inexpensive then.

I would suggest not accepting Elfdude's assertions as factual. See, for example, here re contraception not being taught:
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...ation-now-past
Re condoms:
https://www.walmart.com/browse/976760_1414629_1258934
https://www.luckysupermarkets.com/shop#/?q=condom

[Gaidin]

You don’t know a lot off courts then

No court is legally able to unless they think they can find a loophole to slip through the Supreme Court.

You really don't know how our courts work. And at least, if they're fundamentally conservative, we can trust them to heave to the fact that they're UNDER SCOTUS.

[basics]

Nice red herring. Go create another thread about conditions not detected before birth if you want this question answered.

Gaidin,

Explain the difference between what is about to be born and what has been born? Is it not true that babies have been born alive to dead mothers? The red herring here is that life doesn't begin at conception for as Jesus implied, it does but then what does He know as He is only our Creator? Did John called the Baptist not jump inside Elizabeth when Mary entered their home. Oh yes that baby knew what Mary was carrying. Humanity wants all the pleasures of life as long as nothing gets in the way but life is life is life.

[Aexodus]

No court is legally able to unless they think they can find a loophole to slip through the Supreme Court.

You really don't know how our courts work. And at least, if they're fundamentally conservative, we can trust them to heave to the fact that they're UNDER SCOTUS.

I was more thinking of courts in other western countries

[Gaidin]

Gaidin,

Explain the difference between what is about to be born and what has been born?

Simply put, one has been born and is irrelevant to this thread.

[basics]

Simply put, one has been born and is irrelevant to this thread.

Gaidin,

How can you say that man?

[Gaidin]

Gaidin,

How can you say that man?

Very easily.

[The spartan]

It’s their own decision to get pregnant. Come on, when people have sex they know what they’re doing.

Yes, they know they are giving in to their basest human desire. You seem more interested in enforcing personal standards on others rather than having a legally sound argument.

[Elfdude]

I would suggest not accepting Elfdude's assertions as factual. See, for example, here re contraception not being taught:
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...ation-now-past
Re condoms:
https://www.walmart.com/browse/976760_1414629_1258934
https://www.luckysupermarkets.com/shop#/?q=condom

Not only did you post a link which confirmed my costs (btw few teens have access to a credit card to buy online). You also redoubled my point by pointing out that 1 in 3 males and 1 in 5 females recieve no education whatsoever on the subject.

On top of this:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...implant-teens/

I'm sorry, but I've seen many examples of contraceptive curriculum and the reality is that there's not nearly enough time to go into detail that is necessary to properly explain these subjects to pre-adults. There's easily 5x as much information, practical training and specifics given in the majority of the western world which is entirely absent in American Curriculum. Add this to the fact that most teachers until HS (which you only have to take for 1 term in 4 years in most school districts) are not trained in the subject the outcomes are expectantly dismal.

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

As for Aexodus,

You admit people make mistakes, you just think they should be held accountable. The problem is that a human is not an isolated entity or a punishment. A human has drastic consequences on the society around it. Raising a child well is very damn important and the consequences of failure to do so have terrible effects on society and are relatively easy to ignore as a parent. Furthermore that doesn't address the question of whether or not those mistakes should punish their children.

[Infidel144]

Not only did you post a link which confirmed my costs (btw few teens have access to a credit card to buy online). You also redoubled my point by pointing out that 1 in 3 males and 1 in 5 females recieve no education whatsoever on the subject.

Interesting, so a box of 36 condoms for about 15 dollars or a box of 12 for about $7 confirms your assertionthat condoms are rarely as inexpensive as .50 cents each (which is what Aexodus said).
While your "point" was: "Contraception is not taught in the US. So no, you're wrong."
Not that 1/3 of males and 1/5 of females are not taught about contraception, but that no one is.
That is, you were lying, and are now trying to cover up that by lying some more. You do that a lot.