[Mikes]

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

It is always an option.

The point is, it needs to be the choice of the woman affected.

How could it be any other way really? Or would you propose that, for example, a woman who was just raped should automatically be forced to endure a 9 month pregnancy with the rapist's child, on top of the initial emotional trauma and physical damage?

Would anyone really tell that woman: "Gee tough luck ... but that rapist's sperm fertilized your egg, so enjoy your pregnancy!"  Seriously?

[AdmiralRalwood]

They do on a daily basis.

[Aesaar]

How could it be any other way really? Or would you propose that, for example, a woman who was just raped should automatically be forced to endure a 9 month pregnancy with the rapist's child, on top of the initial emotional trauma and physical damage?

Would anyone really tell that woman: "Gee tough luck ... but that rapist's sperm fertilized your egg, so enjoy your pregnancy!"  Seriously?

Sandwich thinks so.  Not putting words in his mouth.  He literally said that.

Raped? That's absolutely horrific. Don't make it worse by killing your baby, unwanted or not. Give it up for adoption - there's plenty of loving couples out there that can't have children of their own and who are looking to adopt.

One of my best friends was raped in February 2014, and for quite a while, even the smell of gravel made her have a panic attack.  Suggesting that - had she been impregnated - she should be forced to carry a reminder of that rape for 9 months is ****ing insane.

[deathfun]

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.

Okay, let me say this another way
Fetus is a person, but it's not considered murder, so therefore I don't care what you do to the thing in your abdomen

Let me say that one more time. It. Is. Not. Considered. Murder. By. Law.

Oh look my point still remains the same.

And a pro-lifer says the same.

Welcome to the conundrum which is morals, something I've repeatedly said are entirely flexible and really pointless to force onto people who disagree with you.

[Bobboau]

Fetus is a person

in what way?

[GhylTarvoke]

Okay, let me say this another way
Fetus is a person, but it's not considered murder, so therefore I don't care what you do to the thing in your abdomen

Let me say that one more time. It. Is. Not. Considered. Murder. By. Law.

But if you murder a pregnant woman in the United States, you're charged with two counts of murder. Odd, isn't it?

[deathfun]

Fetus is a person

in what way?

You uh... sort of missed the point I was explaining to zookeeper

I'm saying my point stands the same either way you look at it. It's not illegal nor considered murder unanimously throughout Western Civilization. Someone's choice to have a slightly different moral outlook doesn't really affect you, and if what they're doing (something entirely legal to do) concerns you, you really ought to reassess what sort of things concern you. This is a private matter, it's doesn't bloody concern you.

Much to the same, Pro-Choice side should just leave the Pro-Lifers to their own set of morals instead of trying to convince them they're wrong because that goes nowhere and ultimately leads to a **** flinging conversation that really isn't much of a debate. They're not inherently wrong, they just share a different opinion on something that is based off a moral platform which is flexible and different from person to person. Some don't consider it a human being until birth, others late term, others when it's first conceived and duplicating cells. Does it actually matter? Not really.

In the end, it isn't illegal, nor is it morally bankrupt (depending on which side of the fence you're on)

Don't we all have better things to do than drawing lines in the sand and having morality wars about who is more morally sound than the other person?


And with that, I am now done. I imagine you'll all return to arguing who is more right, progressive, pro-whatever, despite that all of this discussion depends on your moral platform, and therefore makes no one person more right or wrong than the other. Hundred years from now, I imagine anyone looking back on history thinking to themselves how petty we all were. Much like we look down on racists, homophobes and people who still think women shouldn't have rights today.

But if you murder a pregnant woman in the United States, you're charged with two counts of murder. Odd, isn't it?

Yeah, it is odd and probably just setup that way to punish the murderer more so because dammit, you killed a pregnant woman and that's just no good! Or something along those lines

Abortion though, still not illegal. Well, unanimously. I keep using that word because there are places where well... it is illegal

[Bobboau]

It's legal therefore it's fine? that is utterly idiotic and asinine logic. you walk down the street and see me verbally berating and abusing someone, you're just going to whistle and walk along? you're not going to make some sort of judgement of me? if anything that was legal was fine then we'd never change our laws. I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around all the dimensions of utterly ridiculous your argument is. and you realize the reason this is an argument is because two sides are actively trying to change the law right?

this is entirely centered around how you define personhood.

...or that is a thinly veiled posthoc justification for trying to punish people for having sex in a way they don't like.

one or the other. one of those two.

[zookeeper]

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.

Okay, let me say this another way
Fetus is a person, but it's not considered murder, so therefore I don't care what you do to the thing in your abdomen

Let me say that one more time. It. Is. Not. Considered. Murder. By. Law.

Oh look my point still remains the same.

I have no idea whatsoever how any of that relates to anything we've been discussing, or what point you're even referring to.

And a pro-lifer says the same.

Welcome to the conundrum which is morals, something I've repeatedly said are entirely flexible and really pointless to force onto people who disagree with you.

Uh... okay? That doesn't seem to relate to anything either.

[Dragon]

Abortion though, still not illegal. Well, unanimously. I keep using that word because there are places where well... it is illegal

Legal=/=right. Or illegal=/=wrong, for that matter, something I like to bring up, though in a slightly different context. Sometimes (how often depends how crappy the local law is) you have to chose between what is legal and what is right. I don't know of a country that would not have a single law on the books that wouldn't be immoral in some way. We're not discussing legal realities. We're discussing what those realities should be, their current status is rather irrelevant. The law about murdering a pregnant woman being counted as two murders is not an argument, either. It might be one of the many legal oddities and inconsistencies, though in that case, I'm willing to let it slide.

Logically, since killing a person is murder (using a simplified definition not to muck the argument up), a fetus can't be a person and killing it not considered a murder. This is a classic example of what Orwell called "doublethink". Either it's a person, so abortion is murder or it's not a person and therefore abortion is not murder. Which one it is we're trying to establish. And no, there really is no "third option" that wouldn't be doublethink.

And a pro-lifer says the same.

Welcome to the conundrum which is morals, something I've repeatedly said are entirely flexible and really pointless to force onto people who disagree with you.

You're taking it out of context. This line is not about morals. It's about identifying the point that is contested. Everybody in both groups agrees that murder is not a good thing (which is the exact opinion this line referred to). The question is whether you can call abortion murder. Shifting the discussion to whether murder is right or wrong is a common trick of the anti-abortion people, but it's not a valid way of arguing. We're talking abortion itself.

[karajorma]

But if you murder a pregnant woman in the United States, you're charged with two counts of murder. Odd, isn't it?

I suspect that's basically to punish the murderer for the crime of killing an obviously pregnant woman. Especially when you consider that the Bible actually says the complete opposite.

[NGTM-1R]

Shifting the discussion to whether murder is right or wrong is a common trick of the anti-abortion people, but it's not a valid way of arguing.

This is an argument over whether you are killing a person.

As such, murder is an entirely appropriate metaphor to employ and if you find it unwelcome to have the question turned about upon you, don't worry; pro-choice has been putting up with being equated to murderers and having their position described as murder for decades.

[GhylTarvoke]

Reasoned, pluralist debate about abortion is about as close to impossible as any issue I've ever seen, in no small part because it touches on the unsettling and fascinating truth that all moral systems are built on axioms that can't really be reduced or logically justified. The universe doesn't distinguish between life and nonlife — there's no code in physics to recognize and tag a living thing. Arguments about the capacity to suffer founder on our inability to understand qualia.

For me, the most convincing pro-life argument is that we haven't the foggiest idea when a fetus has qualia, or in religious terms, when it has a soul. Qualia are a complete mystery to us, which makes it impossible to draw lines.

But if you murder a pregnant woman in the United States, you're charged with two counts of murder. Odd, isn't it?

Yeah, it is odd and probably just setup that way to punish the murderer more so because dammit, you killed a pregnant woman and that's just no good! Or something along those lines

I suspect that's basically to punish the murderer for the crime of killing an obviously pregnant woman. Especially when you consider that the Bible actually says the complete opposite.

Why would the murder of a pregnant woman be worse than any other murder, though? (So much worse, in fact, that the crime is doubled?)

Legal=/=right. Or illegal=/=wrong, for that matter, something I like to bring up, though in a slightly different context. Sometimes (how often depends how crappy the local law is) you have to chose between what is legal and what is right. I don't know of a country that would not have a single law on the books that wouldn't be immoral in some way. We're not discussing legal realities. We're discussing what those realities should be, their current status is rather irrelevant. The law about murdering a pregnant woman being counted as two murders is not an argument, either. It might be one of the many legal oddities and inconsistencies, though in that case, I'm willing to let it slide.

Logically, since killing a person is murder (using a simplified definition not to muck the argument up), a fetus can't be a person and killing it not considered a murder. This is a classic example of what Orwell called "doublethink". Either it's a person, so abortion is murder or it's not a person and therefore abortion is not murder. Which one it is we're trying to establish. And no, there really is no "third option" that wouldn't be doublethink.

Agreed; laws are often contradictory. I also agree that this particular law is a sign of doublethink (which is what I think you're saying - correct me if I'm wrong).

[Grizzly]

One of my best friends was raped in February 2014, and for quite a while, even the smell of gravel made her have a panic attack.  Suggesting that - had she been impregnated - she should be forced to carry a reminder of that rape for 9 months is ****ing insane.

Not to mention the financial burden and medical risks.

[666maslo666]

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?

Lots of crimes dont affect me, including genocides in distant parts of the world, infanticide, racist crimes against ethnicities I am not a part of etc. So this is a very dumb and selfish standard to use. As long as these acts affect someone, they may be a valid target for criminalization. It does not have to be me at all.

Now the question is, does foetus count as "someone" or not? At what stage of development does a human count as someone? That is the central question when it comes to abortion. There are many possibilities where we could draw the line, from conception up to even some post-birth stages (after all, it was common to consider infanticide less wrong than murder of adult human in the past). And it is very subjective, too.

My own opinion goes something like this: the notion that a microscopic bunch of cells is considered a person is really absurd. At the same time, the notion that 9 month old foetus is not a person purely because it is still inside the mother instead of outside is just as absurd to me. You may as well legalize infanticide at that point (which some pro-choice extremist minority does advocate, and I can at least admire their consistency and honesty).

So, what makes a human into a person instead of a human as just an object with no rights? Id say it is our higher brain. Neither early foetuses nor some people in vegetative state have functioning higher brains, and I am inclined to see them more like objects instead of human beings. And what does it mean for drawing the legal line? Id say somewhere in second trimester would be a good idea, since thats when higher brain really begins to develop. It also coincides nicely with viability, which is another important threshold because now the woman also has the option of early delivery instead of abortion.

And when someone says that potential lives matter, I just cannot take that kind of reasoning seriously, even tough I can see where it stems from. If potential lives mattered, we would be obligated to procreate 24/7. Think of all the potential lives you are killing right now by not having sex! Nah, as a consequentialist, I believe there is no moral difference between pulling out and aborting, both mean one less human being in this world. If the first one is morally OK, then the second one must also be.

[Luis Dias]

Shifting the discussion to whether murder is right or wrong is a common trick of the anti-abortion people, but it's not a valid way of arguing.

This is an argument over whether you are killing a person.

As such, murder is an entirely appropriate metaphor to employ and if you find it unwelcome to have the question turned about upon you, don't worry; pro-choice has been putting up with being equated to murderers and having their position described as murder for decades.

Exactly, and I find this issue with as much emotional baggage as the euthanasia problem. People are quick to throw ideas around like "Weren't doctors supposed to follow the Hippocratic Oath", and it's all too easy to let oneself be immersed with too much emotional drama flooding any reasonable discussion one might have. And a part of me tells me that we shouldn't want it any other way. To unemotionally discuss these things like we are talking about shutting down lightswitches is too nihillistic for my taste. And if you think about it, death is indeed the most radical consequence a human being is going to suffer, and it has radical emotional consequences. However, the emotional flood is indeed impairing the discussion, and instead of us having a productive debate over all these issues, we only get two groups of people emotionally disgusted at each other for focusing on two distinct vectors.

I don't see any real solution to this problem, but I am not entirely sure of Battuta's line of reasoning, stating that the problem is a metaphysical one. Most people don't ****ing care about metaphysics. What people do is the exact opposite: they care about the things they will care about and then justify them with metaphysical reasons. And inevitably, we will get extremes in this. And why wouldn't we? All of this stems from the Big Question of "What is to be Human", and thus to even nurture the thought that Religion would have nothing to whine about any of this would be incredibly naive.

[deathfun]

At what stage of development does a human count as someone? That is the central question when it comes to abortion.

During a pregnant woman's first trimester, the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
During the second trimester, the Court held, a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant woman.
During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the woman's right to privacy, and the state may prohibit abortions unless abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

1973 people (Roe vs Wade). A line was drawn by the Supreme Court in 1973. Not to mention they upheld the pregnant lady's Right to Privacy

Lots of crimes dont affect me, including genocides in distant parts of the world, infanticide, racist crimes against ethnicities I am not a part of etc. So this is a very dumb and selfish standard to use. As long as these acts affect someone, they may be a valid target for criminalization. It does not have to be me at all.

If you're going to respond to something, read the rest of it beforehand. Affect and concern, two different things. Breaking laws should concern the citizens despite the fact the breaking of them doesn't necessarily affect them.

In the case of abortion, no laws are being broken, just people's moral positions etc etc said all this before

1973. This is why I wonder why this is even a debate anymore. The line was drawn, the court ruled in favour of abortion privacy, and the protection of life was upheld by ensuring a drawn line.


If we go back on that, is that "right" as you put it Dragon?
And yes, this is a discussion based on morals. Is it moral to abort a fetus? If you're answer is no, you probably think it's murder. If you think yeah, it's okay, you don't think it's murder. If you don't know, refer to the Supreme Court decision and base your position off of that

[Phantom Hoover]

OK but just because the Supreme Court says something is legal doesn't mean people have to shut up and agree that it's moral.

[Luis Dias]

Your legalism is becoming tiresome, deathfun. Arguing that the law is the law because it was written as the law, so that's why it should be the law, is not even wrong of an argument. It's confusing what is with what should be. It's such a basic mistake, but it hasn't kept you from repeating it for no end. I ignored it until now, and I'll ignore it henceforth. Please, stop it.

[deathfun]

OK but just because the Supreme Court says something is legal doesn't mean people have to shut up and agree that it's moral.

Indeed correct, but they ought to respect the "Right to Privacy" bit

Your legalism is becoming tiresome, deathfun. Arguing that the law is the law because it was written as the law, so that's why it should be the law, is not even wrong of an argument. It's confusing what is with what should be. It's such a basic mistake, but it hasn't kept you from repeating it for no end. I ignored it until now, and I'll ignore it henceforth. Please, stop it.

You know why I keep bringing up that Court decision?

The Court decision is a compromise between the two sides of the argument. The only reason the debate continues now is because neither side is able to accept a compromise that took a long ass time to come to a conclusion with. They want all or nothing. How can a discussion actually be a discussion when both sides of this argument want to actively go back on the compromise that was created specifically because of this? I know the law is a grey area, it always has been. I'm not arguing that. I'm simply outlining how idiotic the conversation here is because of the fact a court case and discussion was had that CREATED A ****ING COMPROMISE SO THAT BOTH SIDES WIN

EDIT: Went nuts, exiting stage left