Republicans are trying to find a new term for ‘pro-life’ to stave off more electoral losses

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The removal of women from the workforce due to unwanted pregnancies and therefore depriving the economy of their labor (pun fully intended again) input is probably my preferred argument in favor of abortion.

[Bacon]

More like Commissar PUNFAN

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Reading this thread make me sick to my stomach. 

[TUFKAK]

7 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Reading this thread make me sick to my stomach. 

Women aren’t allowed agency in America 

[Massdriver]

2 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

The real life problem we're seeing in states today is this basic question: Who determines when a mother's life is at risk?

 

That's the nuance here that nobody can determine. Many red states have decided on "when a mother starts to die" and that's plainly horrific. If we leave it to the medical professionals, is there someone overseeing them to make sure they aren't just rubber stamping abortions like medical marijuana cards? Who are the overseers there? Do doctors even want that kind of second guessing? Are we going to force doctors to remain in states that will go after them for doing the best they can?

Great point. I have read antidotes of Texas hospitals turning mothers away if it isn’t imminent life or death because the liability is too high, even if they have a condition they know will likely lead to a life or death situation later. And do you blame the physicians? It’s prison. 
 

As previously stated, the consequences of the law need to be considered.

[Massdriver]

3 hours ago, legend said:

Starting an argument with the goal of determining what is "moral" is a category mistake from the start. "Moral" an absolutely useless word that only serves to prompt people to regurgitate their arbitrary cultural biases. Many have strived to rescue to the word into a more useful definition, but the campaign has been a failure with may competing alternative campaigns only making the matter worse. The term is irrevocably broken and we should never begin argument with it ever again. Its failure as a meaningful term that causes everyone to talk past each other in the most unproductive of ways is perhaps only rivaled by the term "free will."

The word ‘moral’ does indeed have some baggage. When I use it, I mean ‘ethical’. 

[crispy4000]

2 hours ago, TUFKAK said:

And yet the birthing person did not consent to the very act and if they do not consent to the fetus being in their body you have no issue with them being forced, under threat of violence, to carry to term. It’s an abhorrent view.

I don’t see it as violent to deny someone a procedure intended to kill another human being.  And whose success or failure is determined by it.

 

Other steps can be taken, and should be taken regardless of abortion law. As one example, I think convinced rapists should be forced into prison labor that goes entirely into her bank account.  For decades if she becomes pregnant as a result.  With plenty of social programs on top that many Republicans today couldn’t stomach.

 

In my opinion, rape is one of those deplorable crimes where there is no such thing as justice adequately served.  But as I’ve said, I don’t think that excuses further violence against a 3rd party as collateral.

 

2 hours ago, TUFKAK said:

And as a I said earlier, the fetus does not have a right to another humans body. 

 

I believe all human beings should have a right to basic nutrition appropriate to their stage of life.  At that point, there’s no where else they can receive it.

 

If artificial wombs ever become a viable alternative, victims of rape should have the highest priority.  Sure, more foster kids potentially.  But it means we don’t just kill off the unwanted as a marginalized class.

[crispy4000]

2 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

The real life problem we're seeing in states today is this basic question: Who determines when a mother's life is at risk?

 

That's the nuance here that nobody can determine. Many red states have decided on "when a mother starts to die" and that's plainly horrific. If we leave it to the medical professionals, is there someone overseeing them to make sure they aren't just rubber stamping abortions like medical marijuana cards? Who are the overseers there? Do doctors even want that kind of second guessing? Are we going to force doctors to remain in states that will go after them for doing the best they can?

Since I had some time again:

I don’t think there is any perfect answer to this, but it’s important as society that we try.  To better understand the science to develop further treatment options. To give doctors leighway to feel comfortable giving their honest medical opinions on risk, and taking subsequent action.  To expand health coverage in rural heath deserts. The correct choice could vary by resources and quality of care.  There will be some gray area regardless.

 

So generally, you could say I’m not on the side of punishing professionals that are trying to save the lives they can.  In many ways that’s not too different than what we already expect of doctors who deal with terminal issues.  But with the added wrinkle of their being two lives directly involved.  Maybe that means it should be more forgiving?

 

If more abortions are performed as a result, I can understand it.  Although I don’t consider procedures not intentionally targeting the child to be that.  And yes, there can and should be more oversight than dispensaries as you’re referring to, without being draconian.  
 

There’s sadly some societal issues to address surrounding health care professional stigmas as well.  We saw that on full display during the worst of Covid.  It’s not lost on me that many pro-life people, and politicians especially, are idiots in that regard.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

22 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Women aren’t allowed agency in America 

Pretty much. It's always alarming hearing men insist my body be a incubator, fuck my bodily autonomy.

[Massdriver]

3 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

I don’t respect self-determination and personal liberty over other human being’s lives at their core.  That’s my view in a nutshell.  It’s hard for me to romanticize about any view to the contrary.

 
Ive noticed something in this thread about how you talk about this issue. Your use of the word ‘human being’ is perhaps equivocation. At a minimum it is highly misleading to talk of a zygote as a ‘human being’ in the same sense that you refer to a pregnant adult woman as a human being.

 

In a sense sure, they’re both genetically a human being. But a zygote is not a human being in any other meaningful sense. It’s missing every other attribute, including personhood. Generally when people think of being a ‘human being’, they aren’t thinking narrowly of just the genetic component of being a member of the species homo sapien. By using that term, you seem to be using it in different senses to try to strengthen the position of your argument.  I’m not convinced by this line of reasoning.

 

Every time you say ‘human being’ when you refer to a zygote, I simply replace it with ‘genetically a human being with no other human attributes’ and your argument appears to be morally hollow. Why should we care about human genetic material that is empty of any any other human characteristics? It’s far from clear in this thread or in any other pro life argument. 

[Ghost_MH]

33 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Since I had some time again:

I don’t think there is any perfect answer to this, but it’s important as society that we try.  To better understand the science to develop further treatment options. To give doctors leighway to feel comfortable giving their honest medical opinions on risk, and taking subsequent action.  To expand health coverage in rural heath deserts. The correct choice could vary by resources and quality of care.  There will be some gray area regardless.

 

So generally, you could say I’m not on the side of punishing professionals that are trying to save the lives they can.  In many ways that’s not too different than what we already expect of doctors who deal with terminal issues.  But with the added wrinkle of their being two lives directly involved.  Maybe that means it should be more forgiving?

 

If more abortions are performed as a result, I can understand it.  Although I don’t consider procedures not intentionally targeting the child to be that.  And yes, there can and should be more oversight than dispensaries as you’re referring to, without being draconian.  
 

There’s sadly some societal issues to address surrounding health care professional stigmas as well.  We saw that on full display during the worst of Covid.  It’s not lost on me that many pro-life people, and politicians especially, are idiots in that regard.

 

The problem here is that the science can't possibly keep up with the legislation. We can't leave things to medical professionals because those doctors' choices are upsetting people that aren't involved on either side of the decision.

 

That leaves us at an impasse.

 

Being pregnant is expensive. Are we as a society ready to ban abortions, but cover all pregnancy related expenses? There's clothes and vitamins and lost wages from taking time off work for being sick or taking time off work for seeing doctors or taking time off work for giving birth and simply trying to heal afterwards. We can't even agree to give women time paid time off after birth.

 

If we get to the point where artificial wombs are a thing and we get rid of abortion in lieu of these embryo sacks, who is financially responsible for these children when they're born? We looking to open more orphanages? Many of these are kids that will forever be wards of the state, since brown and black kids aren't exactly top choices for adoption in this country.

 

I can't see how it could possibly be "morally just" to restrict abortions until all of the above is taken care of first.

[Kal-El814]

5 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

I can't see how it could possibly be "morally just" to restrict abortions until all of the above is taken care of first.

 

Even if all of that was taken care of tomorrow... there's still the pesky notion of bodily autonomy for people who are capable of getting pregnant.

 

There have always been unwanted pregnancies and there is no reason to believe this will ever change. Even if we assume that 100% of sex that could result in pregnancy is 100% consensual, it is simply unreasonable to expect 100% of people to engage in sex with the assumption that it could result in a pregnancy that must be brought to term. Full stop. Platitudes to the contrary are facile and divorced from the reality of simply being human for the majority of people who are having sex the majority of the time that they do so.

 

This also says nothing about the complete quagmire we wade into with the assumption that a fertilized egg, at least 50% of which will fail to come to term simply because life is messy, has the same rights as a birthed person. You can't hold that position without also believing that people attempting to become pregnant likely committed manslaughter several times or believing that couples who pursue IVF will at some point commit mass murder. 

[crispy4000]

9 hours ago, Massdriver said:

 
Ive noticed something in this thread about how you talk about this issue. Your use of the word ‘human being’ is perhaps  equivocation. At a minimum it is highly misleading to talk of a zygote as a ‘human being’ in the same sense that you refer to a pregnant adult woman as a human being.

 

In a sense sure, they’re both genetically a human being. But a zygote is not a human being in any other meaningful sense. It’s missing every other attribute, including personhood. Generally when people think of being a ‘human being’, they aren’t thinking narrowly of just the genetic component of being a member of the species homo sapien. By using that term, you seem to be using it in different senses to try to strengthen the position of your argument.  I’m not convinced by this line of reasoning.

 

Every time you say ‘human being’ when you refer to a zygote, I simply replace it with ‘genetically a human being with no other human attributes’ and your argument appears to morally hollow. Why should we care about human genetic material that is empty of any any other human characteristics? It’s far from clear in this thread or in any other pro life argument. 

Sure.  You show a picture of a early stage fetus, I don’t think it looks remotely like the human beings we interact with on a daily basis. The idea that pro-lifers can parade out these images and think they change minds with them is something else.

 

But a generalized view of humanity doesn’t allow for a robust argument.  It’s an incomplete picture at best.  It doesn’t consider the history of our human development, including the fact that we don’t just spring to life at birth, and can biologically be considered conceived by our parents from our conception.  That’s why I think some pro-choice thinkers go down the road of other justifications, such as the capacity to feel pain or form rational thoughts. Its often said that the unborn being human doesn’t even technically matter, but the other justifications for abortion do.

 

I don’t know if that describes your perspective at all.  But I consider weak pro-choice arguments to be those attempting to deny or diminish the continuum of our lives from conception.  If it’s intellectually honest to do that, again, there’s wikis that need correction.

 

As for why I think it’s important that these are humans we’re talking about, it gets into when we should be able to kill others of our nature if they otherwise haven’t cleared certain  developmental hurdles instead of others.

[legend]

1 hour ago, Massdriver said:

The word ‘moral’ does indeed have some baggage. When I use it, I mean ‘ethical’. 

 

I think "ethics" tends to have a little less baggage but also still drives conversations into the ground. I get why someone would want to reach for the words because I've spent considerable time trying to layout useful versions of them, but I've come to the conclusion the mere mention of the word tends to kill productive conversations almost immediately. Instead it's more useful to ground things in what someone is trying to accomplish, harms and benefits of choices, etc.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

It will never not be weird to see someone advocate for taking away control over my body by a person who will never ever be faced with the situation he's arguing for.

[crispy4000]

58 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

The problem here is that the science can't possibly keep up with the legislation.

Like decreasing the age of viability, we may never get to a point where the practical answer could totally satisfy.

 

But it’s the health deserts in this country where most women die of pregnancy complications.  Pouring resources into that and incentivizing doctors to move there would be a great legislative start.  That and so many things mothers in this country can’t take for granted.

 

I’m all for making pregnancy affordable.  It’s still too much for too many families.  It’s a mess about our health care system that needs to be fixed.  Related, I also think super high deductible non-HSA plans are a particular evil that also needs to be addressed.

 

 

58 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

The problem here is that the science can't possibly keep up with the legislation. We can't leave things to medical professionals because those doctors' choices are upsetting people that aren't involved on either side of the decision.

 

That leaves us at an impasse.

 

Being pregnant is expensive. Are we as a society ready to ban abortions, but cover all pregnancy related expenses? There's clothes and vitamins and lost wages from taking time off work for being sick or taking time off work for seeing doctors or taking time off work for giving birth and simply trying to heal afterwards. We can't even agree to give women time paid time off after birth.

 

If we get to the point where artificial wombs are a thing and we get rid of abortion in lieu of these embryo sacks, who is financially responsible for these children when they're born? We looking to open more orphanages? Many of these are kids that will forever be wards of the state, since brown and black kids aren't exactly top choices for adoption in this country.

 

I can't see how it could possibly be "morally just" to restrict abortions until all of the above is taken care of first.

 

I don’t think we create a society that truly values children and families without addressing each of these.

 

It’s not moral to not fix these things.  But I’m also not of the  mindset that killing some to ease the burden in the meanwhile is the best answer.

[crispy4000]

33 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

It will never not be weird to see someone advocate for taking away control over my body by a person who will never ever be faced with the situation he's arguing for.

 

On your end?  No.  But on the other end, I suppose I wouldn’t be here to live and tell.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

 

On your end?  No.  But on the other end, I suppose I would be here to live and tell.

I don't worry about the hypothetical human beings, I care about those of us here and not and the very real consequences we face. If you had been aborted as a zygote, you'd never have known, so it's irrelevant.

[crispy4000]

22 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I don't worry about the hypothetical human beings, I care about those of us here and not and the very real consequences we face. If you had been aborted as a zygote, you'd never have known, so it's irrelevant.

 

I don’t consider a living human a hypothetical.  We’d differ on what a living human is, I presume.
 

Abortion isn’t the only way to be killed unawares.  You’d have to go to some other arguement about what makes it okay in that circumstance and not others.

 

 

I’m going to call it here to avoid going back around to things already said.

[CitizenVectron]

We accept your admission of defeat.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Gotta love a man telling me a clump of cells with the potential to become a sentient being is entitled to my body and all the health risks with it. You should see my face right now. My skin is literally crawling.

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

It’s not moral to not fix these things.  But I’m also not of the  mindset that killing some to ease the burden in the meanwhile is the best answer.

 

The problem is we are still killing some. We're just moving the burden of death to pregnant folks that are unquestionably alive, here and now.

 

In an ideal world of a zero friction vacuum, sure, I totally get it. However, that's not the now. There are health deserts because doctors don't want to have to second guess their care or turn away patients they want to help. They do this because red states don't trust doctors to make informed and just decisions with their patients. If we do allow them to make decisions with their patients without the oversight or risk of persecution, then you have to allow for knowing that you'll never know whether an abortion is justified.

 

It's just not possible to have both in the real world. I'm really trying and I can't even imagine what that would look like.

 

If we trust doctors, you have to live with knowing you'll never know what is and isn't justified according too your moral compass. If you don't trust doctors, you have to live with knowing doctors will move somewhere they are trusted and women will die.

 

This is the same as any job. Nobody likes to be micromanaged, people want to be treated with respect, and people want to do the best job they can while being trusted to do so.

[Keyser_Soze]

I already know the answer from someone but we need to ask is there anything worse than murder?

 

If a rape victim having an abortion is wrong then forcing that person to carry it to term and take care of it is worse. Think of the psychological toll it would take for someone to go on thinking about this kid and taking care of it while it is a living memory of a violent assault on them.

 

And you can say put it up for adoption but that also puts a psychological toll on the kid, they have to not only go through the foster system but always live with knowing they are the son of a rapist or whatever.

 

While the mother may never recover psychologically from the assault at least you can ease the burden of not forcing her to give birth to an unwanted child. And you know that kid who's going to be scarred mentally his whole life? We don't have to worry because an embryo can't have those kinds of thoughts.

 

Abortions are sad because it's the loss of a potential being, although it's a life we can never predict. However, murders are sad because generally it's the loss of someone who has already made an impression on the living

 

I don't think I'm saying anything new or groundbreaking here, just giving my 2 cents, and really I shouldn't have to because I'm not a woman. (Which is why I generally only lurk in these topics)

 

This should be considered a medical procedure and only decided between the mother and father (but mostly the mother) not some christian zealot I'll never meet in my life.

[PaladinSolo]

It must be wild to find out you have an extreme position on a topic, something like 80% of the country believes it SHOULD be legal in at least some circumstances, and almost 3 times as many think it should be legal in any circumstance than not legal in any.  Even the GOP gets the message and is trying to change the way they're viewed on it, which should tell you something about your own position.

[Chadatog]

Oh and just to chime in with the whole there will just be more kids in the foster care system Crispy said casually, if you only knew how many kids with severe medical needs we have been asked to temporarily place with us.  We opened our home to 2 children in the last 5 years and the current child demands all of our time and energy, and unfortunately makes us have to turn down most other cases.  The last child we took in for a weekend was a girl who was malnourished and abused and it nearly broke my wife.  That's even only a fraction of the kids that can't find placement.  Tell me when you get to see a young black man break down in front of you asking why he couldn't get a home because a significant portion of people going into foster care are doing it to land a white infant/toddler and won't take teens or poc.

 

On a more positive note we should be through the adoption process for Nori sometime in October.  I will be sure to include a picture once we are her legal parents.

[SuperSpreader]

20 hours ago, TUFKAK said:

“I gave birth to you aren’t you grateful for that”

 

They did that for themselves not for you. You're just two random lottery numbers combining. 

[legend]

"It's a human and killing humans is wrong" is a terrible argument that equivocates with the word "human" in the two premises and asserts an overly simplified rule as if it were universal. If there wasn't real life-ruining harm caused by this position, a bad argument like this could be ignored -- we all make mistakes -- but Jesus, wake up.

[SaysWho?]

11 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

I don’t consider a living human a hypothetical.  We’d differ on what a living human is, I presume.
 

Abortion isn’t the only way to be killed unawares.  You’d have to go to some other arguement about what makes it okay in that circumstance and not others.

 

 

I’m going to call it here to avoid going back around to things already said.

I’m genuinely curious — if a woman has her period and the egg is fertilized, did a human being die? Is a fertilized egg not implanted considered the death of a human? 

[Ghost_MH]

7 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

I’m genuinely curious — if a woman has her period and the egg is fertilized, did a human being die? Is a fertilized egg not implanted considered the death of a human? 

 

That's the take many have in regards to IVF.

[SaysWho?]

26 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

That's the take many have in regards to IVF.

I’d like to know his take on a woman’s natural functions.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

And this is where I said that pro birth people Can only really deal in generalities because once you get into specifics they either sound wishy washy where you’d need lawyers deciding when an abortion is “acceptable” or they sound completely callous and cold hearted. And only one of these is the honest truth, the other is a lie to make them feel better

[Jwheel86]

12 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

On your end?  No.  But on the other end, I suppose I wouldn’t be here to live and tell.

 

You also wouldn't be here if your parents used birth control that night, how many potential siblings did your parents kill by using birth control before and after you? 

 

Same argument towards kids who resulted from rape. "I'm so glad my mom didn't have an abortion after being raped." Are you also glad no one intervened and stopped the rape?

 

14 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 Sure, more foster kids potentially.  

 

In my state we've got kids living in ERs and DSS offices. 

 

Before anyone brings up disability and abortion, I completely support it. So many families, regardless of resources, are completely incapable of raising a disabled child. I knew a guy with my exact condition with parents of means. The parents made him drop out of high school and treated him like a dog that would be dead soon, and he internalized that to the point where the only thing he wanted was to not die a virgin. Pretty sure he did though, and his parents get praised by their friends every year on Facebook on his death anniversary for being so wonderful. They weren't.

[Massdriver]

4 hours ago, legend said:

"It's a human and killing humans is wrong" is a terrible argument that equivocates with the word "human" in the two premises and asserts an overly simplified rule as if it were universal. If there wasn't real life-ruining harm caused by this position, a bad argument like this could be ignored -- we all make mistakes -- but Jesus, wake up.

Yes. This is precisely the point I made yesterday. It seems to be equivocation and I didn’t see a good response. 

[crispy4000]

6 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

I’m genuinely curious — if a woman has her period and the egg is fertilized, did a human being die? Is a fertilized egg not implanted considered the death of a human? 

Yes.  Died of natural causes.

 

5 hours ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

You also wouldn't be here if your parents used birth control that night

Wouldn’t be here vs wouldn’t still be here, technically.

 

5 hours ago, Jwheel86 said:

Same argument towards kids who resulted from rape. "I'm so glad my mom didn't have an abortion after being raped." Are you also glad no one intervened and stopped the rape?

 

It’s a false equivalency to say that we can’t value a child conceived in rape and detest the circumstances of their conception.

 

7 hours ago, legend said:

"It's a human and killing humans is wrong" is a terrible argument that equivocates with the word "human" in the two premises and asserts an overly simplified rule as if it were universal. If there wasn't real life-ruining harm caused by this position, a bad argument like this could be ignored -- we all make mistakes -- but Jesus, wake up.

 

It’s a simple premise, and a good one to generally operate from.  But it’s clearly not an absolute.  Where we cross the boundary to saying killing other humans is okay in select contexts should take solid arguments.  It’s either that, or we just shouldn’t treat any human life as important.

 

I personally don’t think the arguments used to justify abortion from a developmental, cognitive or experiential angle hold up to scrutiny when tested.  Why that particular boundary and not another?  Is it because we have our own biases towards what we are at present?  What does that say about humans not able like us?

 

So from my perspective, the best pro-choice arguments rely on bodily autonomy.

 

 

Don’t think I answered you all yet.  Suppose I’ll do so for anyone that I haven’t with good questions.  Busy for the rest of the day though. 

[SaysWho?]

9 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Yes.  Died of natural causes.

 

 

Are those "deaths" tragic, then? Is something wrong with the female body where this is commonplace and not rare? Because an abortion pretty much does what the female body already does frequently, but we're saying she can't make that decision herself in the early stages of pregnancy.

 

9 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

It’s a false equivalency to say that we can’t value a child conceived in rape and detest the circumstances of their conception.
 

 

But I don't think that's what he's asking. "I'm glad I wasn't aborted." "I'm glad nobody intervened in the rape." Both lead to the person being born. If I stop a rape from happening, have I then stopped a life from forming?