• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Abortion - Under what circumstances should it be allowed?

Falsetto

Aspiring Breeder
I was not a rape-baby(to the best of my knowledge), but I am the result of an unwanted pregnancy at the very least. And you know what? I'm happy to be alive.


No, I have not. But unwanted pregnancies happen all the time, and the amount of children up for adoption attest to the fact that some mother would prefer to give the child up after birth rather than abort it. And as I'm sure you remember, I am one of those.


I said most likely. Admittedly, I'm no expert in the field of transplants, but I do know several people who have had transplants. From what I've read online, Kidney transplants are very safe, and most of the negative effects are not even on the donor, but rather, the person getting the Kidney.

Now, I suppose you cannot force someone to give a kidney. But say it was a child that needed a kidney, and only the mother had the power to give it? Now, I guess you couldn't force the mother to give that kidney, but don't expect me to approve of letting the child die.



No, not the same. Similar...possibly.

Good for you. But see you weren't a rape baby.I don't feel you can try to make that comparison. It's.... absurd. And how would you feel if you were pregnant (or your spouse) and your baby was forcibly ripped out of you (or your spouse)?
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Good for you. But see you weren't a rape baby.I don't feel you can try to make that comparison. It's.... absurd. And how would you feel if you were pregnant (or your spouse) and your baby was forcibly ripped out of you (or your spouse)?
No, but the important pat is what was the same, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, and a rape, the woman has to chose whether or not to abort, because the pregnancy was not planned. If they do not want a baby, then they would either abort, or let the child be born, and give it up for adoption. I was the latter. Like, I said, I might have been, I simply don't know. The only thinks I know about my birth parents, is that my mom is dead, and my dad is in jail for drug possession, to me at least, it seems like the chance that I am a rape baby is well within the realm of possibility.
 

Falsetto

Aspiring Breeder
No, but the important pat is what was the same, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, and a rape, the woman has to chose whether or not to abort, because the pregnancy was not planned. If they do not want a baby, then they would either abort, or let the child be born, and give it up for adoption. I was the latter. Like, I said, I might have been, I simply don't know. The only thinks I know about my birth parents, is that my mom is dead, and my dad is in jail for drug possession, to me at least, it seems like the chance that I am a rape baby is well within the realm of possibility.

Well given the circumstances of your origin the prospect is definitely there then. Some things are better left unknown though. I'm glad your parents told you. Some choose to hide it from their children. Are your parents kind to you?
 
Maeder's question? Would you be so eager to force her to carry the child? That is nothing but loaded.
You are, in reality, advocating forcing women to carry through with an unwanted pregnancy, aren't you? The question is, would you do the same thing to your daughter that you are doing to others? Would you force your daughter to carry a child she didn't want, like you are forcing others?

And it appears that the answer is yes, you would. You would make your own daughter do something against her will that will change her life forever just because of your own moral principals. This is why religion is so absolutely horrifying to me, because an otherwise rational individual will throw away his brain cells just to say "nope, talking snakes, no abortions, cure leprosy with bird blood".
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
The problem with disagreeing with abortion, but not caring what option the woman takes, but not supporting any policies that allow her to make the choice she wants is still saying "I don't care what you do, as long as you can only do what I want because I don't want the option available"
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Because all too often, it's presented as a false choice. Vulnerable woman who only get part of the information. Who often get lied to. Child might have mental/physical issues? Better abort, you won't have any kind of a life. Single parent? Better abort, you won't have any kind of a life. Too young, too old? Same response. Poor? Same response.
Dunno how you would prove this but let's assume for argument's sake that these were the reasons women abort.

So?

Like, honestly. I don't see anything wrong with a woman aborting for whatever reason she personally finds viable. I don't know why you would know her situation better than her.
 

ellie

Δ
Staff member
Admin
I said most likely. Admittedly, I'm no expert in the field of transplants, but I do know several people who have had transplants. From what I've read online, Kidney transplants are very safe, and most of the negative effects are not even on the donor, but rather, the person getting the Kidney.
the operation itself isnt too terrible, though any major surgery carries risks. the problems come later in life and a kidney donor is far more likely to have problems later on than someone who never donated. which is similar to pregnancy because it causes irreversible changes.

Now, I suppose you cannot force someone to give a kidney. But say it was a child that needed a kidney, and only the mother had the power to give it? Now, I guess you couldn't force the mother to give that kidney, but don't expect me to approve of letting the child die.
i am not saying you'd have to agree with the decision, but most reasonable people agree you should not be expected to give up an organ (or even things like bone marrow and blood that can grow back) for the sake of another person. i've donated blood many times and would donate bone marrow if someone needed it, but i have friends who won't donate either of those for various reasons and that is okay. they should be able to decide what they want to do regarding their own body.


No, not the same. Similar...possibly.
it's really not similar at all. involuntary manslaughter would be like if i saw someone drowning and didnt do anything to help them. if i refused to give up my kidney to save someone i knew needed one that isn't the same.

Because all too often, it's presented as a false choice. Vulnerable woman who only get part of the information. Who often get lied to. Child might have mental/physical issues? Better abort, you won't have any kind of a life. Single parent? Better abort, you won't have any kind of a life. Too young, too old? Same response. Poor? Same response. How many places that handle abortions send people who are unsure to the other group? Pro-life group wants to hand out support literature about their pregnacy centers? Sue them and get an RO so they can't come near your clinic. There was an attempt to change internet listings so that pro-life places would not show up ahead of abortion clinics. A clinic gets a bad rep for cleanliness or illegal behaviors? Hush it up and ignore it. Keep referring women there.
have you ever actually been to a clinic? because that is not true at all. the only places that give women just part of the information are the terrible pro-life "centers" here that should be shut down. actual clinics present all of the options to women, including abortion as an option. pro-choice people are exactly what the name says, pro-CHOICE. i have had quite a few of my female friends have children in circumstances that i think it would have been better for them to not have the baby, but i support their choice to make the decision they want to make regarding their own bodies, and i dont think any of the options should be taken away from them.
 

Maedar

Banned
The problem with disagreeing with abortion, but not caring what option the woman takes, but not supporting any policies that allow her to make the choice she wants is still saying "I don't care what you do, as long as you can only do what I want because I don't want the option available"

In other words, "you have the right to choose, so long as the choice you make is the option I approve". Some would say that is distorting the truth, I say it is a boldfaced lie.
 
If pro-forced birth doesn't get an objection, then pro-abortion should not.

But you are telling these women they MUST have this baby. That is forced birth.
I am not saying she MUST get it aborted.
I am saying she should have a choice in keeping it or aborting it. That is not Pro-Abortion.
That is Pro-Choice. . .

Because all too often, it's presented as a false choice. Vulnerable woman who only get part of the information.

So what? Her choice, her life. Whether she's vulnerable or set on it doesn't matter, she made the choice. And that's the point, she should have a choice in the matter. It's her body, her POTENTIAL baby (it's not a baby yet). So who are you to tell her what to do with such?
 
Last edited:

Maedar

Banned
In other words, LDS, in a country that values freedom and democracy as much as this, who are YOU to tell a woman what to do with her uterus? Who is the government to tell her what to do?

Your body is the most personal piece of property a human being has, and if someone else thinks he owns it, then that's...

Well, what is it called when one human being owns another?

Please answer...
 
Okay I have a serious request.


I'm seeing a surprising number of mods here making some pretty biased statements, including,

(1) Assertions to the effect that it's fine to label pro-life as "pro-forced birth"


(2) Making statements that entirely leave out the moral status of the fetus (presumably presuming that it has none, as no proof was presented in these posts)


(3) Responding to undocumented claims about the lack of choice presented in abortion clinics/Planned Parenthood/whatever by giving similarly undocumented claims to the effect that pro-life clinics are as a rule horrible and don't provide choices because abortion isn't what they recommend


(4) Forgetting that the decision in Roe V. Wade was based on some highly dubious (some would say obviously flawed) claims


and
(5) Generally insinuating that pro-life equals highly immoral, presumably by forgetting that a significant number of abortions have absolutely nothing to do with rape





I was just on my way to attempt to convince someone to not view the mods as so biased.




Instead of what I am seeing posted here, may I politely request that we see some of the following?


(1) Some data on the information provided in clinics that advise people against abortion, preferably from a neutral source, especially one that acknowledges that some of these are for counseling and only counsel as long as the woman wants counseling


(2) Some data on what women are told in abortion clinics or Planned Parenthood, once again, preferably from a neutral source, especially one that provides outside analysis of whether Planned Parenthood's actions always line up with their stated policies


(3) Some acknowledgement that some of the people here are not arguing for abortion in the case of rape to be criminalized (it having been legal in such a case in Texas before Roe v. Wade)


(4) Some recognition that this debate deals with the moral status of the fetus, not just the moral status of the mother





I hope I make it clear with this that what I am asking is that this thread be treated as a genuine debate over whether abortion is moral and should be legal. That is all I am asking. I am not asking any individual mods to have or express a view different than they actually do.


Thank you.
 
Last edited:

Falsetto

Aspiring Breeder
In other words, LDS, in a country that values freedom and democracy as much as this, who are YOU to tell a woman what to do with her uterus? Who is the government to tell her what to do?

Your body is the most personal piece of property a human being has, and if someone else thinks he owns it, then that's...

Well, what is it called when one human being owns another?

Please answer...

I believe the answer to that is enslavement.
 
(4) Some recognition that this debate deals with the moral status of the fetus, not just the moral status of the mother

That's hard for someone to do when we don't see the Fetus having a Moral Status.
A fetus, at least in my mind, can't have a moral status.

Is it disturbing? Absolutely, I don't think anyone here thinks it's a beautiful procedure.

But neither is Lethal Injection.
But I feel if it's justified, so be it.
Same goes with abortion. I don't particularly like the idea of sucking it out of there.
However, I do believe the mother should have a choice in whether she wants to keep it or not.
 

Maedar

Banned
I believe the answer to that is enslavement.

I was going for "slavery", but close enough. Give the man a prize.

Pikachu, there is amble medical evidence that a fetus has no brain activity until well past the 24-week limit set in Roe v Wade, because it barely has much of a brain. How could a fetus have "moral status" with no thoughts, no personality, and basically, no sentience? It doesn't make sense!

It doesn't have a heartbeat until later either you sound... Ridiculous.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
I was going for "slavery", but close enough. Give the man a prize.

Pikachu, there is amble medical evidence that a fetus has no brain activity until well past the 24-week limit set in Roe v Wade, because it barely has much of a brain. How could a fetus have "moral status" with no thoughts, no personality, and basically, no sentience? It doesn't make sense!

It doesn't have a heartbeat until later either you sound... Ridiculous.
It has the DNA of a Homo Sapien, 46 chromosomes, and the real ringer, it will be a human if not aborted.
 

Maedar

Banned
It has the DNA of a Homo Sapien, 46 chromosomes, and the real ringer, it will be a human if not aborted.

We've already heard your lame "potential to be human" theory, Spock, and we still don't by it. If that was true, then they could legitimately argue that a woman who refused to become pregnant every single time she was fertile was killing a potential child.

Honestly...
 
I was going for "slavery", but close enough. Give the man a prize.

Pikachu, there is amble medical evidence that a fetus has no brain activity until well past the 24-week limit set in Roe v Wade, because it barely has much of a brain. How could a fetus have "moral status" with no thoughts, no personality, and basically, no sentience? It doesn't make sense!

It doesn't have a heartbeat until later either you sound... Ridiculous.


You need to show a source for your claim that brain activity starts past 24 weeks and heartbeat starts later. Pretty sure I saw a link provided much earlier in the thread indicating those things are there...much earlier. I'm gonna try and dig it up.

EDIT: Silly me. It wasn't this thread, it was the previous one. I'm still going to keep looking.




We've already heard your lame "potential to be human" theory, Spock, and we still don't by it. If that was true, then they could legitimately argue that a woman who refused to become pregnant every single time she was fertile was killing a potential child.

Honestly...
Eggs do not have a complete set of human genes. Eggs, while living, are only reproductive cells. On their own--which they stay per your example--they do not have the "potential to be human." This is basic biology.
 
Last edited:

Navin

MALDREAD
I'm seeing a surprising number of mods here making some pretty biased statements, including,

(1) Assertions to the effect that it's fine to label pro-life as "pro-forced birth"

I've already argued the semantics behind using a label such as "pro-life" vs "pro-forced birth." Are you going to honestly tell me "pro-forced birth" is the wrong term? If you're anti-abortion and you want to ban women the choice of having it available, you're basically forcing them to give birth whether they want it or not.
 
Pro-forced birth misses the point that this debate involves the issue of whether the fetus has any moral status at any point (or at the point under discussion).

In states that ban abortion after the start of the third trimester, the lawmakers have not instantly caved to arguments saying this is forcing women to give birth to these late-term fetuses.

Many of the people debating in this thread have used the third trimester as a cut off time themselves (some of them even think incorrectly that Roe v. Wade made third trimester abortions illegal when it only allowed states to ban them). Most frequently, these people, who would describe themselves as pro-choice, say that the fetus deserves some kind of legal protection past that time.


The argument about force bypasses that issue entirely. If it is possible the fetus deserves similar legal protection earlier, then the argument about force does nothing but paint an ugly picture that is missing something truly important.







EDIT: Specifically for Maedar, but relevant for anyone in the debate. I found some Wikipedia links on when the heart and brain are working:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Development

Says that from weeks 9 to 16, the heart and brain are at the beginning of development and have only "minimal operation."

That is largely contradicted by a second link I found:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development

This one says that when the embryo is in its fourth week (which is referred to, confusingly, as the sixth week of gestation, a scale I am not using here), it has a heart, and it starts to beat.

It further says that by the time the embryo is in its sixth week, it has a brain.

When the embryo is in week seven, it says, the sound of the heartbeat is detectable by using something called a doppler.

To put it in perspective, this is all before the fetal stage even begins.


(Just to clarify, most of what was said on that page was very similar to what was on one page it linked to, a .gov page.)


To supplement that, I found a chart that deals with brain development. We can debate the exact significance of that, since I'm no expert in this area.

To go back to the "Prenatal development" page, it specifies that shortly after it is a fetus, it can make a fist with its fingers. Unless you want to argue that it's the mother's brain causing that, I think it proves that it definitely has a significant amount of brain activity.





I'm going to rest my case there. For saying that a fetus has no heartbeat and no brain activity until after the 24-week mark, you are the one who sounds ridiculous.


Additionally, I'm going to add that I found a link showing pretty clearly that abortions past the start of the third trimester are not banned nationwide under Roe v. Wade. Rather, it is, as I've mentioned before, left to the states to determine whether they want to ban it or not, with several states allowing it.


You need to acknowledge both the biological data and the legal data I have presented, Maedar.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
So TFP wants to debate the moral status of the fetus.

I'd start by asking why it deserves moral status above the privacy to one's own body.
 
Top