What pisses me off most about the choice debate is the insincerity of the antagonists. — Banno

Make arguments, not emotions. This thread contains lots of real arguments regarding abortion. That seems worth continuing.

I did. A cyst is not a person. Try not to read so selectively.

It's a cyst with a beating heart. They just think it's murder. It's no more complex than that.

It's a cyst with a beating heart. — frank

Not to begin with.

They just think it's murder. — frank

Murder is unlawful killing. It's not murder if abortion is legal.

It has a beating heart when they do the abortion. They don't like to do them before 12 weeks.

Murder is unlawful killing. It's not murder if abortion is legal. — Banno

Slavery is ok if it's legal?

They don't like to do them before 12 weeks. — frank

That doesn't seem to be so.

If you decide to have an abortion, it is best to have it as early as possible.

It is safe, simple and low-risk when done under 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Slavery is ok if it's legal? — frank

Abortion is not murder if it is legal.

It is safe, simple and low-risk when done under 12 weeks of pregnancy.

I guess things have changed, but the heart starts beating at 5 weeks, around the time a woman would notice she's pregnant, so most fetuses that are aborted have a beating heart.

Why do you care about the heart, though? Does that give you pause?

Abortion is not murder if it is legal. — Banno

That's a sketchy way to look at it. They think it's a wrongful killing. Does that help you understand?

Why do you care about the heart, though? Does that give you pause? — frank

I don't. You raised "heart", not me.

...wrongful killing... — frank

"They" think it against god's law, perhaps.

I don't. You raised "heart", not me. — Banno

Point was it's a cyst with a beating heart.

They" think it against god's law, perhaps. — Banno

They think it's murder.

Point was it's a cyst with a beating heart. — frank

Your terminology is muddled here, but it seems you are intent only on being a bit of a dick, so I'll leave you to it.

Your terminology is muddled here, but it seems you are intent only on being a bit of a dick, so I'll leave you to it. — Banno

Not at all. I was just explaining what my fellow citizens see as a moral fault.

Go over it again, if you will. "Murder" is a legal term. Folk who think abortion is murder, despite it not being so on the state legal code, perhaps might defend their view by appeal to the supposed laws of their invisible friends. They call it murder because their invisible friend says so.

And by the time a heart develops, we are no longer looking at a cyst. Yet we are still not looking at a person.

Go over it again, if you will. "Murder" is a legal term. Folk who think abortion is murder, despite it not being so on the state legal code, perhaps might defend their view by appeal to the supposed laws of their invisible friends. They call it murder because their invisible friend says so. — Banno

This argument is actually offensive, and you're usually a fair-minded person, so I'll chalk it up to lost in translation.

And by the time a heart develops, we are no longer looking at a cyst. Yet we are still not looking at a person. — Banno

Ok, so stop calling it a cyst, because the fetuses that are aborted look like little humans.

This argument is actually offensive — frank

Tough. What folk think their invisible friend says is no basis for moral choice.

so stop calling it a cyst — frank

You seem to be having trouble with the fact that the foetus develops over time.

Tough. What folk think their invisible friend says is no basis for moral choice. — Banno

The honorable response to a person who claims crimes are happening is to listen to them, understand what they're saying, and respond with your own viewpoint. It's dishonorable and morally repugnant to suggest that they don't have a right to their feelings. Treat them the way you'd like to be treated if you had a grievance and you wanted to be heard.

You seem to be having trouble with the fact that the foetus develops over time. — Banno

I've studied fetal development to moderate depth. I'll never forget the mind-bender of realizing how closely the early development of an animal resembles plant reproduction. The womb is a seed pod.

It's dishonorable and morally repugnant to suggest that they don't have a right to their feelings. — frank

I didn't deny their feelings, just their excuse. What they think their invisible friend says is no justification for forcing their view on others. If they do not agree with abortion, that's fine, they do not have to have one.

Singer's argument for abortion being permissible is very clear cut. So long as a being has no preferences, a being who has preferences regarding the first being has their preferences take precedence arbitrarily. A woman who thus prefers to abort therefore does nothing wrong, so long as the being does not have preferences.

You will generally get people behaving as if the conceived entity has preferences, but for a long time - even after it starts looking like a human - it has no preferences. So treat it how you like.

I'd go further and claim that abortion should be sufficiently accepted and available that we see it as equivalent to the morning after pill. So long as the being has no preferences, who cares? Whatever emotional discomfort is associated with that thesis can't be distinguished from social pressure, disgust and tradition.

You could argue against the conditional statement:

so long as a being has no preferences, a being who has preferences regarding the first being has their preferences take precedence in all circumstances

But you'd be left having to argue why it's still permissible to "mistreat" rocks and plants.

You could argue that the being has preferences - but that's just false for the vast majority of time the abortion is legislated for. All of this is especially tenuous if you eat meat - what, so it's okay to kill something to eat but not to painlessly avoid diminishing a woman's pain?

All of this is ultimately about legislation and what is permissible to do, the emotional reactions of people - especially people who feel the need to have abortions, or feel strongly about the issue - should be listened to. But not at the expense of sound moral principles, scientific facts and humane laws.

The latter is what you risk when you give the moral disgust response against abortion the same level of respect as a reasoned policy. If you are listening to a friend, fine, public airing of that disgust response in a legislative context harms women's reproductive autonomy.

What they think their invisible friend says is no justification for forcing their view on others. — Banno

They think it's immoral. The reason that matters is a little thing called democracy.

They think it's immoral. The reason that matters is a little thing called democracy. — frank

They think it is immoral, but their justification for that is shite.

You know that if there were are referendum in 'Merka, abortion would be legal.

They think it is immoral, but their justification for that is shite. — Banno

You can't even justify believing 2+2=4. That doesn't diminish your civil rights.

You can't even justify believing 2+2=4. That doesn't diminish your civil rights. — frank

Seriously? So you have given up on rationality. Fine. See you on the ramparts.

Seriously? So you have given up on rationality. — Banno

Rationality is a matter of fashion.

See you on the ramparts. — Banno

Do you even own a weapon of any kind?

Do you even own a weapon of any kind? — frank

I don't need to.

Have a look down the page from Pew Research linked above. Opposition to abortion is overwhelmingly from white evangelical protestant republican conservatives.

What was that you said about Democracy?

There are plenty of cysts in the female reproductive system. A fetus is just another one of those. And if a cyst doesn’t resolve on its own, we remove them. That’s just rationality at work.

Have a look down the page from Pew Research linked above. Opposition to abortion is overwhelmingly from white evangelical protestant republican conservatives. — Banno

They gang together, yes. That's how democracy works. An issue is powerful to the extent it gets people to put aside their differences and join forces. Republicans have been pretty good at that for several decades. These days, not so much.

The issue is now decided at the state level. After years of supporting Roe V Wade, I finally came around to realizing that was the wrong way to do it. When pro-choice people have enough power to create an amendment, then it will be a federal issue. Maybe in a couple of generations.

There are plenty of cysts in the female reproductive system. A fetus is just another one of those. And if a cyst doesn’t resolve on its own, we remove them. That’s just rationality at work. — NOS4A2

I think there might be a cyst in your skull. :razz:

It's a good argument, but unfortunately Singer mucked his credentials with some rubbish about disability. The capabilities approach strikes me as an improvement. There is a neat summary of the approach here: Abortion, Dignity and a Capabilities Approach

This also recognises the nuance @frank is looking for.

When pro-choice people have enough power to create an amendment... — frank

Given that this is around sixty percent of your population, why is it that they do not have "the power"?

Or is yours a failed democracy.

Singer mucked his credentials with some rubbish about disability. — Banno

I read that book (Practical Ethics). It's really not that bad. In fact the discussion uses very similar premises to the abortion argument. I found his treatment of disability actually really nuanced and profound. eg the first few pages of that book are an impassioned defence of welfare programs for the disabled and something close to a social model of disability! But that's for another thread.

Given that this is around sixty percent of your population, why is it that they do not have "the power"?

Or is yours a failed democracy. — Banno

It takes a lot of energy to amend the Constitution. That's as it should be.

Yes, another thread; unfortunately even naming him in some circles, in which his arguments would be beneficial, will finish conversations. He is persona non grata in disability circles.