• We're currently experiencing a minor issue with our email system preventing emails for new registrations and verifications going out. We're currently working to fix this
  • 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?

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The order that those fall in is significant, you cannot have one without the one before it. You cannot be happy if you are not free, you cannot be free if you are not alive. A woman not aborting a fetus, would be temporarily giving up her happiness. Aborting a fetus would be taking away all 3 of those rights. So you have 2 options, one involves taking away one right temporarily, and the other involves taking away all three permanently. Now in a perfect scenario, no one would have to lose ANY of their rights, but this scenario makes you choose from 2 evils. This shows that at the very least the moral status of the fetus deserves to be considered.
 
Last edited:

Maedar

Banned
So, Spock, what you're saying is, the rights of this "potential human" (a term that which there is no legal definition of) should trump those of an actual, living human?

It is to laugh. I would say that the "greater evil" would be showing preference to the fetus, seeing as it has no identity.

And even greater evil would be listening to asinine suggestions like that on a political front.

You need to acknowledge both the biological data and the legal data I have presented, Maedar.
Pikachu, try to present Wikipedia as evidence to an actual professor or lawyer (much less a doctor), and you'll get a cold stare from him at best. (It is not considered a legit reference source, being a private site. Did you know that the TV Tropes I have linked to is the same company?)
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The order that those fall in is significant, you cannot have one without the one before it.
And you just made this up. Since when were they in some sort of order?

You cannot be happy if you are not free, you cannot be free if you are not alive. A woman not aborting a fetus, would be temporarily giving up her happiness. Aborting a fetus would be taking away all 3 of those rights. So you have 2 options, one involves taking away one right temporarily, and the other involves taking away all three permanently. Now in a perfect scenario, no one would have to lose ANY of their rights, but this scenario makes you choose from 2 evils. This shows that at the very least the moral status of the fetus deserves to be considered.
Here's one thing I don't understand about conservatives.. and this isn't a direct reply to you but this is just a tangent from me.

They go on about freedoms, right to life, blah blah blah, you get the idea... but once you examine their economic principles? It's essentially take care of you and yours. I make a million dollars, but it's my million dollars, and I choose whether to give it to people at the bottom or not. Don't tax the **** out of me and give my money to people in poverty. I'll do what I want with my money because I earned it. Have those people at the bottom work their way up like I did. That is the American way, apparently.

I can respect that at least. I mean, I don't agree with it 100%, but I can respect that as a philosophy and belief about what freedom means in this country.

But as soon as we get to talking about fetuses...

As soon as we get to talking about a pregnant woman...

That mindset goes into the garbage all of the sudden.

That same mindset that tells conservatives that a rich man has a right to his money no matter the hard situation of those below them is now doing the opposite. It now says that the woman with her own identity and life who is likely in the hard situation aforementioned now lost her earned identity to something with no attachments. No legal identity or emotional attachments. Nothing.

Again, I just don't get it. You want to claim life precedes everything else? You want to care for the potential of a growing human being so much? How do you deal with the fact that this is clearly not the case outside of her womb? What about these overcrowded adoption homes? I surely don't see the privileged going out of their way to adopt those minority and handicapped babies who are stuck their for their entire lives.

I don't see any real care for the unfortunate and poverty; you know, the ones actually considering abortion. You want them to earn their money and way just like those above them. You don't believe in free handouts.

So why does it change in the womb? All you're statistically doing is adding another poor person to the poor population likely because you're forcing the birth of a child to a poor woman. Then the cycle continues more often than not.

So, why not stick to the so-called conservative mindset? Have the fetus earn its identity the same way poor Jane Doe has to earn her living and not depend on a handout by you simply because you have money. Don't have something with no legal or emotional attachment get a free 'handout' for the sake of life, because plenty of already living people die and suffer because they lack the privileged accessories of those above them not willing to simply hand it to them.
 
Last edited:

Maedar

Banned
And you just made this up. Since when were they in some sort of order?
They aren't in any order. They aren't even in the Constitution. (They are in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, and thus do not have any real legal bearing on American law.)

Spock, please respond to GhostAnime. Why is it that conservatives insist, "It's mine, I earned it, the government has no right to tell me how I use it", but then tell women they should use their own bodies the way the government tells them?

Hypocrisy, greed, or a combination of both?
 
Last edited:

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
They aren't in any order. They aren't even in the Constitution. (They are in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, and thus do not have any real legal bearing on American law.)

Spock, please respond to GhostAnime. Why is it that conservatives insist, "It's mine, I earned it, the government has no right to tell me how I use it", but then tell women they should use their own bodies the way the government tells them?
Okay, you both kind of missed something important here. I am not here to discuss the political/legal aspect of abortion, only the moral aspect. When it comes to politics and the making of laws, I just let people do whatever the heck they want, but I will still input my opinion on the morality of the issue.

"Why is it that conservatives insist..."? I wouldn't know, because as I do not care about politics, I don't bother figuring out what side says what, so if I happen to have same opinion as a "conservative" in one area, do not assume that I share ALL of their opinions.


They go on about freedoms, right to life, blah blah blah, you get the idea... but once you examine their economic principles? It's essentially take care of you and yours. I make a million dollars, but it's my million dollars, and I choose whether to give it to people at the bottom or not. Don't tax the **** out of me and give my money to people in poverty. I'll do what I want with my money because I earned it. Have those people at the bottom work their way up like I did. That is the American way, apparently.

I can respect that at least. I mean, I don't agree with it 100%, but I can respect that as a philosophy and belief about what freedom means in this country.

But as soon as we get to talking about fetuses...

As soon as we get to talking about a pregnant woman...

That mindset goes into the garbage all of the sudden.
I cannot answer for certainty, but I would assume that would be because, aborting a fetus would be taking away any possible chance it had to "Make it to the top".

And you just made this up. Since when were they in some sort of order?
Its in the opening of the Declaration of Independence. Y'know, the thing that supposedly, laid out the purpose of this country.
 

Maedar

Banned
The Declaration of Independence was the document that expressed the reasons for the Revolution.

It actually has nothing to do with lawmaking. For that, see the Constitution.

Once again, Spock, putting the rights of a "potential human" before those of an actual living, breathing, thinking, feeling human is VERY wrong.
 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
The problem here is you're more giving the fetus rights and asking why we should take them away, instead of trying to prove why it should have them in the first place. For that you would need scientific articles that prove that yes, this is a human and should be protected.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
so if I happen to have same opinion as a "conservative" in one area, do not assume that I share ALL of their opinions.
I told you it wasn't directed to you.

I cannot answer for certainty, but I would assume that would be because, aborting a fetus would be taking away any possible chance it had to "Make it to the top".
The same way someone born in a poor family can't get health care.
 
Circumstances? That shit should be on demand. Pray tell, what reason is there for there to be any legal restrictions whatsoever unless you're under the delusion that the fetus has a soul or can feel pain, despite no scientific evidence pointing to any of those things? If there is no rational basis or evidence to believe in something, don't believe it. Tripe like "But the fetus moves around" or "Closely resembles a human." is nothing more than emotionally manipulative garbage meant to get others to abandon their critical faculties. My favorite candy to eat are sour patch kids. I have no problems biting off their heads despite the fact it resembles a boy or girl.
 
Last edited:
Hequetra, can you find science articles indicating that the fetus can feel no pain in the very latest stages of pregnancy, say a week before "normal" birth? Because by everything that I've read, a fetus at that stage is extremely similar to a newborn. A week early isn't even counted as premature, apparently.


And Roe v. Wade allowed (but did not force) the states to have an interest in protecting a fetus past the start of the third trimester. Maybe you should take up the reason for legal restrictions thing with them.


As though it's some kind of "wild idea" and none of the pro-choice debaters on here have ever suggested that abortion should be illegal past the start of the third trimester.


Speaking of which:

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.
Are you telling me that you don't think it has any moral status after the start of the third trimester? Because I'm pretty sure in some earlier debate threads you said that abortion should be restricted until after that point.

Remember, privacy wasn't the only thing that the Roe v. Wade decision was based on.


I surely don't see the privileged going out of their way to adopt those minority and handicapped babies who are stuck their for their entire lives.
Angelina Jolie. Or does it only count when a privileged person adopts someone in a country where they are in the minority?

And are you really making the claim that the phenomenon of a privileged person adopting a minority or handicapped baby is nonexistent...without providing the kind of statistics you have on occasion asked me for?


I don't see any real care for the unfortunate and poverty; you know, the ones actually considering abortion. You want them to earn their money and way just like those above them. You don't believe in free handouts.

So why does it change in the womb? All you're statistically doing is adding another poor person to the poor population likely because you're forcing the birth of a child to a poor woman. Then the cycle continues more often than not.

So, why not stick to the so-called conservative mindset? Have the fetus earn its identity the same way poor Jane Doe has to earn her living and not depend on a handout by you simply because you have money. Don't have something with no legal or emotional attachment get a free 'handout' for the sake of life, because plenty of already living people die and suffer because they lack the privileged accessories of those above them not willing to simply hand it to them.
Uhhh...a fetus can't earn anything. It's a fetus.

I genuinely have no clue what you were trying to say there. I'm assuming your real point was not intended to be fraught with such an obvious absurdity as asking the fetus to do the impossible task of earning something. Would you please explain?





And finally, I'd like to make one extremely important point:
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.
Your response to LDSman contains one highly disturbing element, made rather obvious by comparing it with Ellie's response to him. Ellie alleged that pro-life clinics are in some way misleading. She was consistent in believing it wrong to get people to make decisions based on in some way or another not being informed.

Do you realize you are advocating misinformed consent?
 
Last edited:
Hequetra, can you find science articles indicating that the fetus can feel no pain in the very latest stages of pregnancy, say a week before "normal" birth? Because by everything that I've read, a fetus at that stage is extremely similar to a newborn. A week early isn't even counted as premature, apparently.
That sounds more like you're eluding to partial birth abortion, which I'm pretty sure (Correct me if I'm wrong?) is illegal everywhere except for in extreme circumstances. It's really this simple, we can safely guess when a fetus can feel pain when it has a functioning nervous system. No nervous system, no pain. It would be like killing a plant. As for when an observable nervous system starts developing, I'm actually not sure. With a little help of our friend google...

Finding decent articles on this is actually a bit of a toughie, but I I think this one is pretty informative.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429

From what I gather, the jury is somewhat out just for the fact tracking the growth of nervous system development in the fetus is a mind numbingly difficult task, but the fetus feeling pain for 16 weeks is highly, highly unlikely. It's also worth noting that the question of "Does it feel pain?" isn't the one big question in determining the legality of abortion. Worms and insects feel pain as well, but no one feels bad when somebody hooks a worm to catch a fish or steps on an intruding bug in their house. I know these analogies aren't particularly pleasant when we're discussing such a sensitive subject, but these are points worth addressing. Even if it could be demonstrated that fetuses could feel pain at a precise and pinpoint time period during pregnancy (And not to delve off topic, but even if we could, I don't suppose you'd be okay with abortion before that point even then, would you?), you've only done half the work.

And Roe v. Wade allowed (but did not force) the states to have an interest in protecting a fetus past the start of the third trimester. Maybe you should take up the reason for legal restrictions thing with them.
Well, the problem with this is that states can just pile on restriction after restriction making abortion practically illegal even if it's not on the books. Take Mississippi for example, it's so saddles with bureaucracy, restrictions, and hubris that even though abortion is technically "legal" their conservative dominated state legislature has set up so many walls in the way of getting an abortion that it's virtually impossible. There's only one abortion clinic in the entire state, and most women seeking one have to go out of state.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Are you telling me that you don't think it has any moral status after the start of the third trimester?
In all honesty, my feelings on abortion aren't exactly the same as they were years ago. I'd actually have to revisit that discussion.

Even so, that's not what I mean. I'm referring to the stages of abortion mostly commonly and easily done. If you state that we've had this conversation before anyways, I think you'd know even better about what I'm truly asking.

And are you really making the claim that the phenomenon of a privileged person adopting a minority or handicapped baby is nonexistent...without providing the kind of statistics you have on occasion asked me for?
Well, okay then.

A lot of what this is supposed to demonstrate is that plenty of states are suffering from being overburdened, and that's with abortion on the table. Imagine if it wasn't (well, it'd still happen regardless of whether you make it legal or not, but imagine if people actually obeyed the law then :p)

I'm assuming your real point was not intended to be fraught with such an obvious absurdity as asking the fetus to do the impossible task of earning something. Would you please explain?
By golly, you're right, a fetus can't earn its identity because it's merely a fetus!

That is the point. You're crying unfair? We all had to earn our identities by being wanted in the space of our mother's wombs each individually.

Do you realize you are advocating misinformed consent?
I was responding to his reply in the sense that it should be illegal solely because of the possibility that a medical professional could mislead her into abortion.

In which case, is silly to me. No, misinformed consent wouldn't be ideal. Certainly, but if you put it in the choice of the person in possession of the body's hands over the government's, it's essentially the lesser of the two evils.

Misinformed consent is always a risk with anything choice related. What's that Benjamin Franklin quote.. er, yeah.
 
Last edited:

Maedar

Banned
Spock, Pikachu, a question, if I may...

If we were to, theoretically, give a fetus the moral rights of a human being based on your assumption, how can we avoid giving them the legal rights as well, which was the objective of the failed "personhood" bills? And I mean ALL legal rights?

Example:

Suppose these laws became reality. What would happen around late February of any given year, when a husband with a pregnant wife decided he had a valid argument to include his unborn child as a dependent on his W2 form?

What would happen when the IRS said no?

And what would happen when several other similar parents cried foul, and he got support from several agencies looking for an excuse to punish the IRS, and the agency was hit with hundreds of lawsuits?

I'll tell you what would happen. The pro-life people would be begging for their own law to be reversed after finally admitting they had opened a Pandora's Box. Because that's far from the only unfortunate implication that would arise if they truly got their way.
 

Navin

MALDREAD
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).
"Pro-life" is a poor term for many reasons, as I explained in the previous page. And what the term "pro-life" misses is any concern for the mother which "pro-forced birth" accurately depicts.

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.
Abortion after fetal viability are very rare anyway. And I don't think any abortions should occur late-term unless it's a matter of health complications for the mother.

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.
The only thing it's 'painting' is the the truth. If you ban abortion, you're denying a woman the opportunity to have one if that's what she wanted and forcing her to give birth. That's fact.
 

Blazekickblaziken

Snarktastic Ditz
Abortion after fetal viability are very rare anyway. And I don't think any abortions should occur late-term unless it's a matter of health complications for the mother.
To add to this, Late term abortions are usually *wanted* pregnancies where the woman's life is at risk or the baby is going to suffer from a serious condition or possibly even die after birth. So acting like women are getting late term abortions just for shits and giggles just shows how out of touch you are with the topic of abortion.
 
Here’s a test:

I’m holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish holding a fetus in the other.

I’m going to drop one. You chose which.

If you really truly believe a fetus is the same thing as a baby, it should be impossible for you to decide. You should have to flip a coin, that’s how impossible the decision should be.

Shot in the dark, you saved the baby.

Because you’re aware there’s a difference.

Now admit it
 

Maedar

Banned
Here’s a test:

I’m holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish holding a fetus in the other.

I’m going to drop one. You chose which.

If you really truly believe a fetus is the same thing as a baby, it should be impossible for you to decide. You should have to flip a coin, that’s how impossible the decision should be.

Shot in the dark, you saved the baby.

Because you’re aware there’s a difference.

Now admit it
Can the pro-lifers here answer him? I'm curious to hear your answer myself.

By the way, by choosing the baby over the petri dish, you favored a living human over a potential human. And yet, you won't do that if the living human is a rape victim who was impregnated against her will.

Misogynist hypocrites or just plain stupidity? I say, both. The pro-life politicians are misogynist hypocrites who are stupid enough to think we believe their reasons. (And that they'll win votes and be re-elected because of it.)
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Can the pro-lifers here answer him? I'm curious to hear your answer myself.
I'll admit, I would choose to save the infant. But here is the reason why. In this scenario you have a guaranteed death of one of 2 "things". I have said before that if the mother's life in danger, then by all means, abort the fetus. But in the scenario of an abortion, both the mother and the infant have the potential to keep living.

Now in the example, there is a fetus and an infant, if I had to make that horrible decision, I would allow the infant to live, because the baby could feel pain, and even pro-choicers will call it sentient. If the fetus could feel pain, then that would make the decision much harder. But just because something cannot feel pain, does not mean it isn't alive.
 

Maedar

Banned
Here we go again. "The fetus can feel pain" you say.

The woman can feel pain too, and again, you think her rights are secondary to that of an unborn fetus, DESPITE the fact that she's a citizen who may be legal age.

You can't arrest, sue, or insure a fetus, and it isn't included in the census until it is born, and yet people think its rights should come before those of someone who can be arrested, sued, or insured. Before the rights of someone who votes and pays taxes. Someone who actually has representation, according to the Constitution. Her rights are second to someone who doesn't.

That's insane.

A fetus is not human. Not as far as the law is concerned.
 
Last edited:
Top