[Phantom Hoover]

Yep. The point of the analogy is that the attitude to abortion being critiqued isn't mere hypocrisy; it's consistent with a pretty widespread moral standard.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Not everyone sees it the way you do.

Gee, really? Guess we should just lock the thread now, since people see things differently than you do.

[karajorma]

I just find it weird that the left, so enamored and preoccupied with altruism as a source for morality and ethics (as opposed to selfishness and greed) can then give rise to such reasonings as "bodily autonomy", which merely translates to me as "I don' give a damn if a small body inside of me's gonna die due to the actions I do to mah own body, I do with mah own body whatevah I want". It's a complete lack of any sense of respect, of dignity, of humillity towards other people and beings. Yes, of course that a woman's body belongs to her, everyone knows this and this is why this is such a controversial debate. But to simply wipe out the other part's right of existence entirely, IDK, it just disgusts me.

I don't think anyone is using bodily autonomy as a black and white explanation of why abortion is okay. Anyone who was would be equally in favour of 8 month abortions and I doubt you will find anyone on this thread in favour of such.

Basically you're getting disgusted at a strawman of your own construction.

[Droid803]

Oh wait, you're talking about that trolley problem with the 5 people that would die without intervention and the 1 that would with it, and not just flipping the switch so one person dies vs. doing nothing and one person dies as described in the post (which is pretty obvious that given equal outcomes not being involved is "better"). My apologies.

[AdmiralRalwood]

The problem is that there is no such thing as doing nothing in a pregnancy.

Except ceasing all bodily activity, in which case you and the fetus will both die, I suppose. Unless someone puts you on life support.

It's not a very helpful analogy in any case.

[Phantom Hoover]

You're bringing this down to semantics. Pregnancy requires no conscious action on the part of the mother.

[AdmiralRalwood]

You're bringing this down to semantics. Pregnancy requires no conscious action on the part of the mother.

Bull****.

[Bobboau]

OK, I'd like to address the "it will become a person" argument. if it is a person because it will become a person, then that means that it will never become a person because it already is one. your argument boils down to it's a person because it's a person, but it isn't a person or you would not have made the "it will become one" argument.

[Phantom Hoover]

You're bringing this down to semantics. Pregnancy requires no conscious action on the part of the mother.

Bull****.

Let's just leave it at that, then.

[deathfun]

I've been reading this discussion since the beginning, and I've really only one question

Does someone you don't know aborting their child that has no connection to you affect you?

I can answer that for you, it doesn't. It doesn't affect you (unless you're directly involved in the situation such as being the father or the doctor who had the unfortunate time being the doctor in this situation). Sure, it goes against/falls in line with whatever moral platform you feel that day, but in the end, it really doesn't change anything about your day or your life.

That's my position. Who gives a flying bloody **** what the hell someone else does to their body. Want a early/mid/late term abortion? Go for it, I don't give a ****. So many problems solved with a simple action of not giving a damn what someone does to themselves

And before someone goes off again about "It's not just to themselves, it's to this living creature", the creature is inside them, attached and essentially an extension of the mother until such time as it matures enough to break free and enter into this ****ty world where everyone will have an opinion on what you should or shouldn't do to yourself

Course, I dislike kids and less of them in a world that'll slowly overpopulate itself, the better

[SpardaSon21]

Just to make something clear, this isn't just moral theorizing for me.  I've had my best friend commit suicide because he couldn't deal with his father exercising that right of bodily autonomy by going from a Dennis to a Denise, so when I say that sometimes, it just isn't worth it, it just isn't worth it.

[Bobboau]

this thread is a disorganized cluster**** like I haven't seen in years. it's like people are just shouting opinions without any concern for things like context or if what they are saying has anything to do with the subject of the thread or something someone else has said.

[Dragon]

I've been reading this discussion since the beginning, and I've really only one question

Does someone you don't know aborting their child that has no connection to you affect you?

I can answer that for you, it doesn't. It doesn't affect you (unless you're directly involved in the situation such as being the father or the doctor who had the unfortunate time being the doctor in this situation). Sure, it goes against/falls in line with whatever moral platform you feel that day, but in the end, it really doesn't change anything about your day or your life.

That's my position. Who gives a flying bloody **** what the hell someone else does to their body. Want a early/mid/late term abortion? Go for it, I don't give a ****. So many problems solved with a simple action of not giving a damn what someone does to themselves

And before someone goes off again about "It's not just to themselves, it's to this living creature", the creature is inside them, attached and essentially an extension of the mother until such time as it matures enough to break free and enter into this ****ty world where everyone will have an opinion on what you should or shouldn't do to yourself

Course, I dislike kids and less of them in a world that'll slowly overpopulate itself, the better

See a few pages back. You better wish for more kids, unless you don't feel like retiring. As far as the entire world goes, overpopulation is not a problem. Low (and dropping) population growth is.

Sure, one can just stick one's head in the sand and say "I don't care". The thing is, some people do. What would you say if the government was exterminating an ethnicity you don't happen to be a part of? "It doesn't affect me, I don't care" isn't exactly an answer that would endear people (especially members of that ethnicity) to you. As far as many abortion opponents think (I'm not among them, for the record), this is exactly what is happening, only that it's not an ethnicity, but age. Also remember: a lot of stuff doesn't affect us, until it suddenly does. If you don't care about things until they become a personal concern of your own, you'll end up running unprepared into a lot of things (or screwed over by things you could've fixed before).

You're bringing this down to semantics. Pregnancy requires no conscious action on the part of the mother.

Ever seen an actual, pregnant woman? It certainly requires a lot of conscious action on her part, and not only to start it. Sure, it might not seem like that at first (it's possible to lead a more or less normal life until the very end), but bearing a child is a lot of work. That's like saying living doesn't require conscious action. You won't be able to live like that for very long.

[deathfun]

Sure, one can just stick one's head in the sand and say "I don't care". The thing is, some people do. What would you say if the government was exterminating an ethnicity you don't happen to be a part of? "It doesn't affect me, I don't care" isn't exactly an answer that would endear people (especially members of that ethnicity) to you. As far as many abortion opponents think (I'm not among them, for the record), this is exactly what is happening, only that it's not an ethnicity, but age. Also remember: a lot of stuff doesn't affect us, until it suddenly does. If you don't care about things until they become a personal concern of your own, you'll end up running unprepared into a lot of things (or screwed over by things you could've fixed before).

So tell me, at what point is someone getting pregnant and then deciding to terminate that pregnancy going to end up being a personal concern of my own? As I mentioned earlier, if I am not the doctor or the father, it doesn't concern me. It's not my place to be concerned with it because it isn't my business.

Your example of the Government exterminating an ethnicity is a terrible example of anything. Why? Because despite the fact I'm not part of that ethnicity, it actually does concern me... primarily because the Government is exterminating a large group of people which is considered Genocide and not okay.

The debate about abortions hardly relates. Sure, the thought process as you've mentioned might be the same, but that's just logically flawed. One, it's on an individual level and two, it only concerns *the person who is pregnant*. It shouldn't concern politicians, priests, pro-lifers, etc. There is no murdering of other people's creatures in their belly. No, it's just one person with a desire to rid themselves of the thing in their own uterus

It's not sticking one's head in the sand and you've said, it's simply realizing how bloody idiotic the entire conversation is in the first place.

Who are we to tell an individual what they can or cannot do to their own personal selves (provided no one else gets maimed in the process)? They want to kill themselves? Go for it. Do drugs? Well, you're on your own. Become a politician? God help you and have fun.

See a few pages back. You better wish for more kids, unless you don't feel like retiring. As far as the entire world goes, overpopulation is not a problem. Low (and dropping) population growth is.

It wouldn't really matter given I won't be able to retire for a long ass time regardless

[zookeeper]

Because despite the fact I'm not part of that ethnicity, it actually does concern me... primarily because the Government is exterminating a large group of people which is considered Genocide and not okay.

Yet that doesn't make any sense, because genocide (somewhere sufficiently far away) doesn't affect you either. You just said that you don't care about abortions because they don't affect you, and now you say that you care about genocide because it's "not okay". Either abortion/genocide affecting you makes a difference WRT whether it's ok or not, or it doesn't. Which one is it?

[deathfun]

Yet that doesn't make any sense, because genocide (somewhere sufficiently far away) doesn't affect you either. You just said that you don't care about abortions because they don't affect you, and now you say that you care about genocide because it's "not okay". Either abortion/genocide affecting you makes a difference WRT whether it's ok or not, or it doesn't. Which one is it?

Yes, because when I say "What someone does to their body is their own business because it doesn't affect me, nor concern me and therefore I don't care" that *clearly* translates to "I don't care what happens in this world because it doesn't affect me"

Note: Concern and affect are two entirely different things. Notice how I said, "It actually does concern me" rather than "It actually does affect me"?

So yes, genocide across the world probably doesn't affect me in a noticeable way, but it does concern me

Once again, concern, affect, not one of the same. Someone aborting their child, offing themselves, doing drugs, neither concerns, or affects me, therefore go for it, do whatever. Ending an entire civilization because you felt like it, may or may not affect me, but does concern, therefore I take issue with your choice to commit genocide

Do I need to be more clear about the choice of words and the English language?

More layman's terms. You harm someone else, bad. You harm only yourself, don't care.

Note: Fetus, a creature currently incapable of realizing its own existence (until proven otherwise). Not someone else, just an extension of you.


EDIT: Hell, lets be even more clear

Genocide: Unanimously against the law
Abortion: Not unanimously against the law

[Flipside]

The truth is, you are never, ever going to get to a situation where 100% of the population is comfortable with abortion and I think that is probably healthy because it balances matters out.

The argument differs because some see it as 'your' body that is with child, others see it as a childs' body that happens to be growing inside your own, it's a question of personal perspective that will probably never be solved.

Each abortion case is unique, like assisted suicide it cannot be taken under a blanket opinion, especially from people who are simply reciting something they heard somewhere else. However, from a purely medical point of view abortion can cause physical and psychological damage to the patient. The former is a medical concern, but the latter often comes from a situation that should be avoided, which is abortion because of the parents situation, rather than their desire to not have a child.

I think the thing is, you won't solve the problem with just a stick, it has to be accepted that a pregnant mother is something more than the worlds most complicated baby-pram, and that this is probably the worst situation in the world to be dealing with absolutes in.

As I said before, education will help, though expecting young people to use contraceptives because 'it's the sensible thing to do' is a short road to disappointment.

[zookeeper]

Yes, because when I say "What someone does to their body is their own business because it doesn't affect me, nor concern me and therefore I don't care" that *clearly* translates to "I don't care what happens in this world because it doesn't affect me"

Note: Concern and affect are two entirely different things. Notice how I said, "It actually does concern me" rather than "It actually does affect me"?

So yes, genocide across the world probably doesn't affect me in a noticeable way, but it does concern me

Once again, concern, affect, not one of the same. Someone aborting their child, offing themselves, doing drugs, neither concerns, or affects me, therefore go for it, do whatever. Ending an entire civilization because you felt like it, may or may not affect me, but does concern, therefore I take issue with your choice to commit genocide

Do I need to be more clear about the choice of words and the English language?

More layman's terms. You harm someone else, bad. You harm only yourself, don't care.

Note: Fetus, a creature currently incapable of realizing its own existence (until proven otherwise). Not someone else, just an extension of you.

Then your whole point is simply "fetus is not a person", not whether something affects or concerns you or what people do with their own bodies.

You came into the thread saying that you've read it, but then immediately try to reframe the issue as being about whether people should be able to do what they like with their own body, even though that's not the underlying issue at all; whether the fetus is "someone else" (see below) or not is the underlying issue, yet you hardly address that at all. Your argument about murder/genocide and abortion being different doesn't work unless one accepts that a fetus is not a person, so that argument is meaningless in an abortion debate where the other side does not accept that a fetus is not a person.

It's just bizarre to me how so many pro-choice people seem to completely miss the point of the pro-life side. I'm closer to pro-abortion than pro-choice myself, but even I think the pro-life crowd, aside from religious nonsense, tend to present more solid reasoning and to-the-point arguments in abortion debates.

More layman's terms. You harm someone else, bad. You harm only yourself, don't care.

And a pro-lifer says the same. The issue with abortion is not whether it's ok to harm only yourself, it's about whether abortion is something that only harms yourself. The former isn't really any more relevant than the question of whether killing other people is ok.

[Mikes]

So riddle me this ...

Case A:
A man and a woman decide to have a baby, they have sex, sperm meets egg, i.e. she gets pregnant, the fetus grows and eventually the baby is born.

Case B:
A man and a woman decide not to have a baby, they use protection, they have sex, the same sperm that would have met the egg and become the baby in case A never are able to meet. No pregnancy develops, no baby is born.

Case C:
A man and a woman decide not to have a baby. They have sex and use protection, it fails. (Worse alternative: The woman is mugged and raped, conceiving a child) Their world is about to collapse because they decided NOT to have a baby for good reasons. Thankfully, they can still take the pill after or abort the pregnancy early on, leading to the same outcome as in case B. Their world does not collapse and their original intention and will is followed.

OR ... they are told by a pro life zealot that he, the "pro life zealot", does not care for their intention, wishes and planning and they HAVE to have the baby against their will, consequently making their world collapse, resulting in a high likelyhood of ruining the relationship, increasing the likelyhood of a botched upbringing with traumatic childhood experiences ....  see where this is going?

No matter how you discuss it,  ... "pro life" always comes down to taking choice about their own life away from people. And to be clear ... I doubt many if any people are seriously considering aborting late term pregnancies ...   but rather this is specifically about the "pro life crowd" arguing that a single fertilized cell deserves more consideration than the intentions, wishes and planning of 2 fully grown people.

And yes... I realize someone is gonna say it's all about the "potential" of that cell ... but seriously, what difference is there to the potential of the sperm and the egg? They have the same potential as the fertilized egg. If you take that sperm and let it fertilize the egg and implant it in a woman the end result will be exactly the same. Hence the potential will be the same.

Decrying that the fertilized cell is a "potential human being" whose protection is worth more than the will of 2 human beings and at the same time decrying "the egg and the sperm that could reach the same potential" is not ... is purely arbitrary.

Yes I realize that you believe "that's how it is and how it *has* to be" ... but seriously... imagine a sperm and an egg in a petri dish ...  you can watch it with a microscope as the sperm comes closer to the egg ... and oh look ... the moment they meet ... you better find a woman to implant that thing in the petri dish because if you are not, you are committing murder? Riiiight. So please do explain how valuing a fertilized egg more than the body,  the wishes and aspirations of two fully grown parents is anything but a random brainfart. Thanks.

[Grizzly]

In case C, why would offering the baby up for adoption be a viable option?