The argument that all sex is coerced due to societal pressures is pretty stupid. — Hanover

And back to the rule of the dick.

The surest way to keep the discussion of this topic superficial and never moving from the spot.

At what point are we merely projecting human qualities onto objects vs. those qualities actually existing independent of our projecting them? — Harry Hindu

This is the wrong direction of approaching the issue. It's a direction that makes sure that the matter never gets resolved.

If, on the other hand, we focus on the intention of those involved in abortion, it all gets very clear and very simple. They act with the intention to kill. They know what that glob of cells is likely going to develop into, and this is what they want to stop from happening. So as far as intention goes, it's irrelevant whether the unborn feels pain or not, whether it should be considered a person or not. Because the intention is to kill.

Then the question is who suffers more and who has the power to prevent the greater suffering in using contraception instead of relying on abortion as the only option to prevent a birth? — Harry Hindu

Again, too narrow a scope. The issue is the intention for engaging in sex in the first place. In discussions of abortion, this is rarely or never addressed.

Then the question is who suffers more and who has the power to prevent the greater suffering in using contraception instead of relying on abortion as the only option to prevent a birth? — Harry Hindu

And since you bring up suffering and magnitudes of it:

What is the greater suffering:

Enduring a sexual urge and not acting on it until it passes (after about 10 minutes),
or risking the health and life of the woman with hormonal contraceptives (and abortions, in case the contraceptives fail)?

Not to worry, Smith. If you're not a fertile female of child-bearing age, then it's very unlikely you will ever have to decide to terminate your pregnancy. — 180 Proof

It's so wonderful that the abortion dicsussion is done mostly by men. And that most women who participate in it protect the interests of men.

Yay, the best a woman can be in this world is a fool, a beautiful little fool. That's what grandma fought for.

This is simple to resolve. Instead of just two categories (man vs. woman or person vs. non-person), there could be three or more. — Harry Hindu

What would be the purpose of defining such things, and what makes you think there would be a consensus? If you're just proposing that an individual do this for themselves, I'm fine with it. I'm just not fine with imposing a definition on people who may legitimately disagree.

Then the question is who suffers more and who has the power to prevent the greater suffering in using contraception instead of relying on abortion as the only option to prevent a birth? — Harry Hindu

Who decides on who is suffering, and to what degree? These judgments will necessarily be based on one's subjective beliefs because there's no objective measure of suffering and no objective identifier of what constitutes an individual human being.

I don't see anything wrong with using a morning-after pill to abort a pregnancy because I don't see a zygote as a something that can be self-aware or suffer. The longer you wait, the more it becomes an issue.

This sounds a reasonable basis for you to decide on when you should or shouldn't get an abortion. But it's not based on objectively true standards, so how could you justify imposing your view on others?

The only reason I can see for having a late-term abortion is because the woman's life is in danger.

Who decides on the level of risk women are required to accept (e.g. "more than likely" she'll die? 50-50? 25%risk?)Is there some reason to think women are getting late term abortions for a reason that is so bad that it needs to be made illegal? I've seen no statistics on it, and my impression is that people feel it should be banned because it sounds gruesome (It IS gruesome!) without considering that there may be good reasons (such as health risks).

I think that the words of a statute prevent some people from doing evil things. — Harry Hindu

I understand, and in the abstract - it's a reasonable objective. In practice, there are problems. Louisiana was considering a law that would treat any act that causes the death of a zygote as a homicide, including a morning after pill, in-vitro fertilization, and failure to medically implant a fertilized egg in an entopic pregnancy. The legislators who favored it believe they would be preventing evil things from occurring.

I'm interested in talking to those that can do the "right" thing even when not threatened with prison.

We ALL want people to do the right thing, but there's an element of subjectivity in deciding when something is wrong and there are nearly always exceptional circumstances that make any firm legal boundaries problematic in special cases. Why isn't it "the right thing" to trust women to do what's right for themselves, and refrain from creating restrictions that limit their choices?

It's so wonderful that the abortion dicsussion is done mostly by men. And that most women who participate in it protect the interests of men. — baker

:ok:

This is simple to resolve. — Harry Hindu

:snicker:

To whoever cares to read, some thoughts while passing through:

The meme that “life begins with conception” stands contra the most rudimentary of human reasoning. Zygotes are alive, yes, and so are all gametes. Pollen is alive, never mind eggs and sperm - not dead, nor inanimate, but living. Rebuttal: “But a human zygote is a human being because it holds the potential to so become a human being.” Leaving the logic of this aside for now, so too do human eggs and sperm “hold the potential to become human beings”. Most if not all contraception is enacted with the intention of killing gametes, hence, yes, life, which furthermore holds the very potential to “become a human being”. Hence why some hold contraception to be murder - this in the very human history we are now reenacting.

And the “potential to so become” argument is blatantly irrational. That which has the potential to so become X is not yet X. Moreover, we can clone humans from individual human cells' genome, granting the cells we defecate along all other excrements the “potential to become a human being”. Should those who go to the restroom be considered killers of human life?

“But a zygote left to its own devices …” … will often enough result in miscarriage anyway, likely much higher than the 10-20 percent reported (which most always do not account for miscarriages in the very early stages of the fetus).

The pivotal question to this issue remains: at which point does a bundle of human cells actually become a human being?

The intentional killing of a zygote or of a fetus is not the intentional killing of a human being unless one considers these to in fact be human beings. And then on what grounds other than that of “potential”, which, again, is not a rationally cogent argument.

-----

Aside from which, too many of the pro-lifers that talk of zygotes as being human beings pretty much shit on all unwanted human life once birthed: e.g., the intentional killing of a zygote verses the potentiality of 80-years or longer of misery and suffering of an unwanted member of society that society at large does not want to help out. You see plenty of these lives homeless on the streets most everywhere.

Finding the latter more moral than the former? I’d really like to understand why. Empathetic - hence non-sociopathic - humans that we all are.

-----

My two cents, at least. This, so as to express my own stance: that of pro-life-quality, which requires choice in regards to abortion so as the maximize the wanted human beings in this world.

So why do we consider it murder if a mother abandons her newborn in a dumpster after being born? — Harry Hindu

Probabably because we, at least nominally, live in a legal system where it is the action that is relevant.

In some cultures in the past, killing one's own child wasn't murder, but killing another person's child was.

In some cultures in the past, killing one's own child wasn't murder, but killing another person's child was. — baker

I have read that it was common in Roman families to leave unwanted infants in the streets, and that early Christians would collect these children and raise them.

It is a paradox in early Christianity (and even today) that this world is considered profane and corrupt, but it is still a moral duty to live in it. Some Christians were all to ready to leave it as soon as possible - possibly leading to the determination that suicide is a mortal sin to stop people from offing themselves in the throws of religious ecstacy. Life is a gift from God, that is full of suffering, sickness, sadness and loneliness for most people, but you can't give it back of your own accord - though He will take it back eventually.

The best thing that could happen to a person is not to be born, obviously. There is no amount of happiness that will make up for the grief and suffering even the most fortunate people will suffer - and most of us are not in that esteemed category. So, we should all have a helluva lot of sympathy for the rest of us caught in this slaughterhouse, but we seem to be more inclined to take it all out on each other.

This is somewhat reflected in the common pro-birth position where the ultimate aim is to force people that do want to bring someone into the world to do it above even their own lives, but then once a person is born, they're on their own.

And back to the rule of the dick.

The surest way to keep the discussion of this topic superficial and never moving from the spot. — baker

There was nothing dickish or stubborn about my post. I made the obvious observation that the demand for abortion typically arose as the result of a mistake, namely in having gotten pregnant when the woman hadn't wanted to.

You indicated the choice wasn't in having had unprotected sex, but it was in having engaged in a relationship in the first place, and the sex that followed that was because society so demanded it that the couple had to submit and have the sex expected of them.

My point was that your argument was extremely poorly reasoned (i.e. pretty stupid) because (1) it defies my experience (in that the sex I've had, I truly wanted to have) and (2) if you believe most sex is under societal duress, you're claiming most sex is rape.

So, back to the discussion: women choose sex, then they choose abortion when they don't choose to have the child, and the reason the abortion is morally neutral yet unfortunate is because the fetus was not a person, but the emotional pain from the mistake is real.

So, back to the discussion: women choose sex, then they choose abortion when they don't choose to have the child, and the reason the abortion is morally neutral yet unfortunate is because the fetus was not a person, but the emotional pain from the mistake is real. — Hanover

:fire:

This is the wrong direction of approaching the issue. It's a direction that makes sure that the matter never gets resolved.

If, on the other hand, we focus on the intention of those involved in abortion, it all gets very clear and very simple. They act with the intention to kill. They know what that glob of cells is likely going to develop into, and this is what they want to stop from happening. So as far as intention goes, it's irrelevant whether the unborn feels pain or not, whether it should be considered a person or not. Because the intention is to kill. — baker

Sure, but then so is using bug spray to terminate bugs and weed spray to terminate weeds. The intent is the same (to kill) but are the consequences the same - meaning is a weed's life any more important than a zygote in the grand scheme of things? To human's a zygote in a woman's womb is more important than a weed, but that doesn't mean that a zygote in a woman's womb is objectively more important. The universe doesn't care, nor does it place any value on one life over another. We do that. What if an alien race that evolved from weeds millions of years ago travels to Earth, defines humans as the pests and attempts to eradicate the infestation?

Again, too narrow a scope. The issue is the intention for engaging in sex in the first place. In discussions of abortion, this is rarely or never addressed.

And since you bring up suffering and magnitudes of it:

What is the greater suffering:

Enduring a sexual urge and not acting on it until it passes (after about 10 minutes),
or risking the health and life of the woman with hormonal contraceptives (and abortions, in case the contraceptives fail)? — baker

It seems to me that one can have the intention of experiencing the pleasurable feeling of sex and the orgasm that follows, or even building stronger social bonds between you and your mate, not necessarily to have kids. The existence of contraceptives allow us to make that distinction. Since my wife went through the pain and effort to carry and give birth to our children, I thought that it only fair that I be the one that gets a vasectomy. While it wasn't entirely painless, it was far less invasive than my wife getting her tubes tied. Getting the vasectomy was one of the best things I did. Now I can enjoy sex with my wife without worrying about a pregnancy. Of course the tubes can always find their way back together, but that hasn't happened in 15 years and now my wife is post-menopausal so even if my tubes did reconnect, there would be no pregnancy.

If by some crazy fluke, my wife got pregnant, we would abort because for us, three is enough. We wouldn't wait until the third or second trimester, though. We would do it as soon as possible. We would terminate the pregnancy not just because we have the number of children that we want, but also because there is a higher risk of birth defects for women over 40. Would it be fair to the child and to us if we were forced to have a child with birth defects? Which would cause the most suffering?

Sure, going under a doctor's knife can have it's risks, but in today's modern world, that is a small risk, and I think that, as individuals, it is our own prerogative to make our own risk assessments.

The pivotal question to this issue remains: at which point does a bundle of human cells actually become a human being? — javra

There is no specific point: an individual human life gradually emerges during the development of that "bundle of human cells".

Consider that there is no set of necessary and sufficient properties for "human personhood". We can identify traits that most humans have, ranges of DNA, and reference to parenthood,, but it's impossible to narrow any such properties into being necessary and sufficient.

What would be the purpose of defining such things, and what makes you think there would be a consensus? If you're just proposing that an individual do this for themselves, I'm fine with it. I'm just not fine with imposing a definition on people who may legitimately disagree. — Relativist

We ALL want people to do the right thing, but there's an element of subjectivity in deciding when something is wrong and there are nearly always exceptional circumstances that make any firm legal boundaries problematic in special cases. Why isn't it "the right thing" to trust women to do what's right for themselves, and refrain from creating restrictions that limit their choices? — Relativist

The issue with abortion is that it shines a light on when we, as a society or as individuals, acknowledge that some life have the right to life. At what point do we as either a society, or as an individual, recognize that another life has the the right to life?

Who decides on who is suffering, and to what degree? These judgments will necessarily be based on one's subjective beliefs because there's no objective measure of suffering and no objective identifier of what constitutes an individual human being. — Relativist

That's the thing - who speaks for those that cannot speak of their suffering? It seems to me that if a life attempts to flee or fight back against being killed then we don't necessarily need a language to make it known to others that some organism is suffering. This is why I think that most people agree that killing a zygote creates less suffering than killing a fetus with a brain and nervous system that reacts to an abortion doctor killing it. Plants also react to being killed or attacked. Do plants suffer the same way that animals with nervous systems do, or are their behaviors instinctive in that there is no self-awareness or self-reflective experiences?

This sounds a reasonable basis for you to decide on when you should or shouldn't get an abortion. But it's not based on objectively true standards, so how could you justify imposing your view on others? — Relativist

Again, this isn't me imposing my view on others. It is asking about when a life without language deserves the right to life. We already impose our views on others by putting people in jail if that life without language is terminated after it is born, but not before. It's strange to complain about others imposing their views on you when you live in a society that does just that. If you are fine with living under someone else's rules, why are you complaining about that when it comes to abortion? At what point are we imposing our views on the fetus/baby?

Is there some reason to think women are getting late term abortions for a reason that is so bad that it needs to be made illegal? — Relativist

I didn't think so until I saw women bragging about having an abortions. What would be the goal a woman is trying to achieve by bragging about it, or calling it joyful? If a serial killer calls their killing of others joyful and brags about it, what would you conclude?

I understand, and in the abstract - it's a reasonable objective. In practice, there are problems. Louisiana was considering a law that would treat any act that causes the death of a zygote as a homicide, including a morning after pill, in-vitro fertilization, and failure to medically implant a fertilized egg in an entopic pregnancy. The legislators who favored it believe they would be preventing evil things from occurring. — Relativist

I would do what I am doing now - question the consistency of such a position when they believe that killing viruses and bacteria is a good thing. I wouldn't consider an abortion a good or evil thing - just a necessary thing from some people. In my opinion, terminating the life of a zygote isn't much different than terminating the life of a virus. Terminating the life of a fetus is approaching that area where morality begins because we cross into that gray area of a language-less organism having the right to life or not. Do only organisms that can use language and make others aware of their suffering via utterances deserve to live?

My point was that your argument was extremely poorly reasoned (i.e. pretty stupid) because (1) it defies my experience (in that the sex I've had, I truly wanted to have) and (2) if you believe most sex is under societal duress, you're claiming most sex is rape. — Hanover

*sigh*

It's not even my argument.

I began making my argument, but you, as usual, jumped the gun. How dickish.

Jesus. The phrase I most often want to use in so many discussions here is "premature ejaculator".

There is no specific point: an individual human life gradually emerges during the development of that "bundle of human cells". — Relativist

No, there is no mathematically strict dichotomy to this transformation. Agreed. This can be likened to the questions such as that of "when does the color orange become the color yellow?": no strict dichotomy, but it yet happens all the same. This being in many ways very entwined with the paradox of the heap: roughly expressed, asking at which point does a heap take form. To me, Roe v Wade in its addressing the three trimesters of pregnancy and their significance gives a very good and informed overall answer to this question you've quoted.

As to my use of the term "point", it was not meant to be taken so literally. My bad, if required.

But how do you interpret this lack of a strict moment of dichotomy to weigh in on the issue? Are you one to rationally uphold because of it that Y’s potential to become X at some time in the future entails that Y = X in the present? This so as to justify that a human blastula = a human being? But then a seed would of itself be a tree. And so forth in innumerable directions.

Consider that there is no set of necessary and sufficient properties for "human personhood". We can identify traits that most humans have, ranges of DNA, and reference to parenthood,, but it's impossible to narrow any such properties into being necessary and sufficient. — Relativist

I've considered it. What conclusions are we to then draw from this: that no such thing as "human personhood" occurs?

I began making my argument, but you, as usual, jumped the gun. How dickish. — baker

Although I don't understand how I could have interrupted your argument before you could set it out, considering we're typing and not speaking, go ahead and say what you're wanting to say.

This is the wrong direction of approaching the issue. It's a direction that makes sure that the matter never gets resolved.

If, on the other hand, we focus on the intention of those involved in abortion, it all gets very clear and very simple. They act with the intention to kill. They know what that glob of cells is likely going to develop into, and this is what they want to stop from happening. So as far as intention goes, it's irrelevant whether the unborn feels pain or not, whether it should be considered a person or not. Because the intention is to kill.
— baker
Sure, but then so is using bug spray to terminate bugs and weed spray to terminate weeds. The intent is the same (to kill) but are the consequences the same - meaning is a weed's life any more important than a zygote in the grand scheme of things? To human's a zygote in a woman's womb is more important than a weed, but that doesn't mean that a zygote in a woman's womb is objectively more important. The universe doesn't care, nor does it place any value on one life over another. We do that. — Harry Hindu

It's about the intention to kill. With which many people don't seem to have a problem to begin with. That being the case, it's not clear how to get through to them ...

What if an alien race that evolved from weeds millions of years ago travels to Earth, defines humans as the pests and attempts to eradicate the infestation?

Bummer!

Again, too narrow a scope. The issue is the intention for engaging in sex in the first place. In discussions of abortion, this is rarely or never addressed.

And since you bring up suffering and magnitudes of it:

What is the greater suffering:

Enduring a sexual urge and not acting on it until it passes (after about 10 minutes),
or risking the health and life of the woman with hormonal contraceptives (and abortions, in case the contraceptives fail)?
— baker
It seems to me that one can have the intention of experiencing the pleasurable feeling of sex and the orgasm that follows, or even building stronger social bonds between you and your mate, not necessarily to have kids.

No, that's still too superficial. The issue at hand is craving, and indulging in it.

If indulging in sensual pleasures would be truly satisfying, then why must we do it over and over again?

Would it be fair to the child and to us if we were forced to have a child with birth defects? Which would cause the most suffering?

I'm not a "pro-lifer". I'm interested in a conscientious attitude toward sexuality.

Sure, going under a doctor's knife can have it's risks, but in today's modern world, that is a small risk, and I think that, as individuals, it is our own prerogative to make our own risk assessments.

It's not about risks, it's about what is at stake. It's irrelevant what the perceived risk is (which most often cannot be correctly calculated anyway), if what is at stake is important to one. It's why people apply for a job they want even though they have less than a 1% chance of getting it, and why they refrain from easy theft where there is a big chance they won't get caught.

Although I don't understand how I could have interrupted your argument before you could set it out — Hanover

You have an intimidating presence and history.

women choose sex, then they choose abortion when they don't choose to have the child, and the reason the abortion is morally neutral yet unfortunate is because the fetus was not a person, but the emotional pain from the mistake is real. — Hanover

What exactly do you think the mistake was in all this?

how do you interpret this lack of a strict moment of dichotomy to weigh in on the issue? — javra

It implies there is no basis for creating legal restrictions on abortion based on protection of an "individual human life".

It's interesting that the draft SCOTUS decision doesn't take a stand on the human personhood of a fetus. It merely denied a right that women should have (irrespective of whether it's constitutionally protected as a technical matter) by permitting states to create arbitrary restrictions. IOW, per SCOTUS, a woman doesn't have a right to choose, but the state does have the right to choose for her.

IOW, per SCOTUS, a woman doesn't have a right to choose, but the state does have the right to choose for her. — Relativist

How libertarian / laissez faire / anti-government control of our human liberties the current conservative SCOTUS is!!!*

* sarcasm, if I need to spell it out

The issue with abortion is that it shines a light on when we, as a society or as individuals, acknowledge that some life have the right to life. At what point do we as either a society, or as an individual, recognize that another life has the the right to life? — Harry Hindu

I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but How do you propose we do that as a society? You seem to accept even a late term abortion if the woman's life is in danger. Even this implies you are valuing the woman's life over the fetus. Perhaps we could do this as a society through education, rather than through legal mandates.

That's the thing - who speaks for those that cannot speak of their suffering? It seems to me that if a life attempts to flee or fight back against being killed then we don't necessarily need a language to make it known to others that some organism is suffering. This is why I think that most people agree that killing a zygote creates less suffering than killing a fetus with a brain and nervous system that reacts to an abortion doctor killing it. — Harry Hindu

Sure, nearly everyone agrees that inflicting pain on other organisms should be avoided, but this includes inflicting a lifetime of hardship on a 14 year old girl who's been date-raped. I expect you'd agree in such a case, just as you do regarding cases in which a mother's life is in danger. But what other exceptions might be you consider reasonable if you had perfect knowledge of each situation? Laws are problematic because they can't make value judgments.

Again, this isn't me imposing my view on others. It is asking about when a life without language deserves the right to life. — Harry Hindu

It's reasonable for everyone to consider this, as long as it isn't codified into law because of the inherent ambiguity. I return to my point about education.

I didn't think so until I saw women bragging about having an abortions. What would be the goal a woman is trying to achieve by bragging about it, or calling it joyful? — Harry Hindu

If a woman had a late term abortion simply because she changed her mind about having another child, that's absolutely abhorent. Legislating it is another matter, but that's apparently not what you're arguing for.

I would do what I am doing now - question the consistency of such a position when they believe that killing viruses and bacteria is a good thing. I wouldn't consider an abortion a good or evil thing - just a necessary thing from some people. In my opinion, terminating the life of a zygote isn't much different than terminating the life of a virus. Terminating the life of a fetus is approaching that area where morality begins because we cross into that gray area of a language-less organism having the right to life or not. Do only organisms that can use language and make others aware of their suffering via utterances deserve to live? — Harry Hindu

Fair enough, and I feel pretty similarly about it.

So, back to the discussion: women choose sex, then they choose abortion when they don't choose to have the child, and the reason the abortion is morally neutral yet unfortunate is because the fetus was not a person, but the emotional pain from the mistake is real. — Hanover

I'm not certain about the emotional pain. I believe most abortions are for women that already have children and maintain a healthy life, but accidents happen. If a couple is having sex regularly, then sometimes a condom can break or birth control pills don't work this one time - apparently most of the time considering.

So, there is nothing in the actions that indicate this would be an emotionally scarring situation or needs to be anyway. A mother is already taking care of two kids shouldn't be forced to have a third. It's essentially puritanical trying to force all sex to only be reproductive in nature even for married women and their husbands. Or single mothers dating.

Also, the "shame" of abortions is entirely social at most. It is an awkward situation mostly if you have pro-birth family members, but most women are in hopefully more supportive social situations or they should find new friends. Abortions are a serious procedure though, but I think a patient would be more concerned about the safety of a procedure than the child they are not going to have. I mean, obviously, she doesn't want the baby, so she's not imagining some potential child that she is going to lose somehow. I hope not, anyway - but the idea that there is some emotional blowback from abortions seems more the result of some kind of romantic point of view that you'd see in movies and televisions more than real life.

It merely denied a right that women should have (irrespective of whether it's constitutionally protected as a technical matter) by permitting states to create arbitrary restrictions. IOW, per SCOTUS, a woman doesn't have a right to choose, but the state does have the right to choose for her. — Relativist

Well, all the Supreme Court can do is rule on whether or not it's "constitutionally protected as a technical matter."

Whether or not that's what they've actually done is being debated by the legal experts, with some saying that the initial ruling was correct and that this draft ruling has been unduly influenced by the justices' biases.

I Invented Gilead. The Supreme Court Is Making It Real.
Margaret Atwood
May 13, 2022

I Invented Gilead. The Supreme Court Is Making It Real.
Margaret Atwood
May 13, 2022 — jorndoe

:fire:

This is just a hunch but I have a feeling that antinatalists would give their stamp of approval to abortion in the 3^rd trimester.

I do. The fewer unwanted offspring / less-than-enthusiastic mothers, the better. :up:

I do. The fewer unwanted offspring / less-than-enthusiastic mothers the better. :up: — 180 Proof

I beseech you to reconsider your position. While the nature of the issue would require us to compromise on our compassion, we can't be that heartless as to legalize 3^rd trimester abortions. It feels wrong and I'm certain that pregnant women who opt for abortion in the 3^rd trimester experience significant psychological and physical trauma which may linger on for the rest of their lives.