Logic (although I was talking in generic terms, not about you specifically); treat everyone as a silent victim, so you can ignore and thus enable any crime that may or may not have occured. I dont disagree with anything you said. I’ve already agreed with the argument for exceptions for rape. But it’s a bit disingenuous to allow all abortions because there’s a chance the pregnancy might possibly be the result of rape that no one has even claimed happened. That’s prioritizing cleaning up the mess/avoiding the consequences, without any regard or responsibility for how the mess happened.
1 Like
The way of the world has nearly always been otherwise, ala “the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must”. Morals are a luxury and often the equality of the law is an illusion. How many of Epstein’s rich friends were even tried? Here in the US it’s just less obvious, while in poorer parts of the world it’s just obviously the way things are.
3 Likes
Of course there is – the fact that sex is now impossible without the risk of producing a child is repressive.
We have foolproof technology for not producing an unwanted child.
Yeah, they didn’t have smartphones either, and I don’t want to be them or live like they did. Everyone is a product of their time.
But we’re past that now. Way past. And we shouldn’t have to go back.
1 Like
Yes! An aspirin …
held firmly between her knees.
1 Like
Why doesn’t he just issue an executive order? I mean, aren’t irresponsible men and women important to the Democrat party? He says so, but it’s time to put his pen where his mouth is.
OTOH, maybe Planned Parenthood hasn’t offered a 10% kickback to The Big Guy, or bought enough of the kid’s “artwork”, or hired any other members of The Big Guy’s family.
“Is now”? It has always been impossible without that risk. We tell people they shouldnt gamble with the rent money because of the risk, not demand that that the bookie give back what was lost after you’ve gone broke.
Yes - by not having sex. Your so-called foolproof technology does not prevent the production of an unwanted child, it destroys an already produced child because it is unwanted. Unless you are referring to the technologies of vasectomies and tub-tying, which as far as I know remain perfectly legitimate, widely available, and completely uncontroversial medical procedures.
I’ve said before, the divide over abortion is rooted entirely in when you consider life to begin. All your arguments that are based on the premise that life doesnt begin until birth is jibberish to the anti-abortion side and adds nothing to the debate, because they consider your entire premise to be invalid thus your argument is irrelevant.
5 Likes
This is the equivalent of my 5 year old abusing my 2 year old, and my 2 year old abusing the cat. When someone is victimized because they are smaller and weaker than than their abuser, that doesn’t make it morally acceptable for the victim to punish someone smaller and weaker than them.
Out of genuine curiosity for your view on the issue – is it your view that women or minor children/teens who become pregnant as a consequence of rape should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term?
2 Likes
I’ve said before, the divide over abortion is rooted entirely in when you consider life to begin. All your arguments that are based on the premise that life doesnt begin until birth is jibberish to the anti-abortion side and adds nothing to the debate, because they consider your entire premise to be invalid thus your argument is irrelevant.
And on the extreme other end, you have people saying that a fresh zygote is a human life.
(when fewer than 1/3 of them ever make it more than 4 weeks into the pregnancy.)
1 Like
So as long as there’s a risk of miscarriage, there is no life to be terminated? That’s where you are drawing the line for being extreme.
1 Like
More the point that a zygote is a handful of cells that haven’t even implanted yet, so it’s dubious to say that the woman is even “pregnant” at that point. 
(and pretty sure it wouldn’t be typical to refer to losing a zygote as a miscarriage, since pre-implantation, I don’t think there would be any discernable discharge)
Do you actually consider a zygote to be equivalent to a human baby, in terms of rights and protections?
At least a fetus has developed enough complex cell structure to have a heart and the beginnings of a brain.
But you said the zygotes dont count as life because 2/3 of them do not survive anyways. That’s what I replied to, because “most are gonna die anyways” is a pretty shaky standard to use to establish a lack of life. It’s equally dubious to imply that these non-viable zygotes are what extremist pro-lifers are wanting to protect from abortion, when you acknowledge there really isnt a pregnancy to be aborted at that point regardless.
When implanting zygotes/fertilized eggs/whatever they are called at that point, the scientists can predict (with 93% acccuracy?) which ones will be viable and which will not survive. That alone gives a little creedence to the concept that there is some level of life at that stage. It at least holds a lot more water than those claiming that the mother’s is the only life involved until after giving birth.
3 Likes
But you said the zygotes dont count as life because 2/3 of them do not survive anyways. That’s what I replied to, because “most are gonna die anyways” is a pretty shaky standard to use to establish a lack of life.
That’s not exactly what I said, though I suppose I can see how you chose to read it that way.
When implanting zygotes/fertilized eggs/whatever they are called at that point, the scientists can predict (with 93% acccuracy?) which ones will be viable and which will not survive. That alone gives a little creedence to the concept that there is some level of life at that stage. It at least holds a lot more water than those claiming that the mother’s is the only life involved until after giving birth.
I’m not saying the other extreme has a morally consistent view, since there is a pretty large swath of the 3rd trimester where premature babies can survive, even without extreme medical intervention.
But I am saying that getting wound up about the moral implications of preserving a clump of cells that isn’t directly discernable as a complex organism, and certainly doesn’t have a brain of any kind, let alone a functioning brain – seems to be a pretty extreme view as well.
1 Like
I guess the whole “life” thing is not so easy, and so drawing a bright line is always the problem. “Something small with potential and that wouldn’t be able to live on its own” is true from before conception to after the kid is born for a year or two. I’ll let these guys make the case for sperm being alive already -
1 Like
I’ll let these guys make the case for sperm being alive already -
That song certainly comes to mind with some of the views I read on the subject.
1 Like
As glitch already pointed out, this sentence flies in the face of biological fact and current birth control technology. Without surgical sterilization, there is no way to have sex without this risk of producing a child. This is nothing new, so your use of the word “now” makes zero sense.
Assuming you are referring to abortions, considering the fact that abortions can fail, we don’t actually have foolproof technology for not producing an unwanted child.
But this claim goes back to the underlying premise. I say the child has already been produced while it is in the mother’s womb from the beginning. You say the child hasn’t been produced until some time weeks/months after me. So we’re back at square one. There is no way not to produce an unwanted child without surgical sterilization or abstinence.
You completely missed what I said. I said the past several generations are unique in that WE DO HAVE nearly consequence free sex. No one before us has ever had that. When the only form of contraception was animal intestines wrapped around a penis and it was only somewhat effective, the argument that an abortion-free landscape was sexually repressive at least held some weight. That is not the landscape we live in now. That is what I was pointing out. Men and women can go their whole sexually active lives without statistically ever worrying that they will “end up” pregnant. Yet so many of us STILL feel we have to go even further and make it 100% consequence free even if, in order to get from 99% consequence free to 100% means we have to kill innocent unborn babies. That’s not as good an argument as you think it is for allowing abortion.
See above. No one is proposing we go back to the times when there was no contraception. Sex is mostly consequence free and as new forms of birth control are developed and hit the market, the effectiveness will continue to get closer to 100%. But the stopgap for the ineffectiveness of birth control shouldn’t be abortion. It should be adoption.
2 Likes
I am consistent. Abortion is wrong regardless of how the child is conceived. A female that becomes pregnant from rape should not abort her unborn baby. Her unborn baby did not play any role in her rape, so he or she should not be punished for it. The mother’s rapist should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, he should not be allowed any parental rights, and he should be forced to pay pregnancy and child support until the child is no longer a minor. If the baby is put up for adoption after birth, he should still be forced to pay child support and it should go to the family that adopts the baby.
That said, I understand politics and the art of compromise. I don’t think it’s prudent, at this stage, to write legislation outlawing abortion that doesn’t include exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. But someday down the line, when hopefully the political landscape on abortion has changed and the more liberal states have restrictions similar to those is western europe, I think it may be prudent for the more conservative states to outlaw it with only exceptions for the life of the mother (and for those occurrences to be investigated to make sure that was actually the case).
2 Likes
I’m not quite sure of the point of your response here to what I wrote. “Humans are terrible and do terrible things to other humans,” isn’t exactly a controversial or poignant take. Morals are indeed a luxury, and we are fortunate to live in one of the most luxurious societies in the most luxurious times in human history. That is why our society doesn’t say, “Oh well,” or “whadda ya gonna do?” when immoral things take place just because we can’t stop all immoral acts or don’t all agree on every immoral practice.
What makes me happiest about the left’s reaction to Roe’s likely abolishment is their outright fear that abortion illegality is now something they have to actually argue against. They have had 50 years where they just didn’t have to really do that because Roe essentially stopped abortion abolition in its tracks. Over that time, we’ve had huge advancements in contraception science, premature baby survival, 3D ultrasound technology, and financial growth. So the old arguments for abortion don’t hold nearly the same amount of weight they used to hold and the pro-abortion left will now be on its heels by relying on very weak arguments for why abortion should be completely unregulated.
For instance, the old standby of Bodily Autonomy is so much weaker now because we can all see, very early on, that there is another body whose autonomy should also be considered.
1 Like
Abortion is wrong regardless of how the child is conceived. A female that becomes pregnant from rape should not abort her unborn baby. Her unborn baby did not play any role in her rape, so he or she should not be punished for it.
Just to play this all the way out – so you maintain this view for a 12 year old girl raped and impregnated by her own father? Aside from the psychological trauma the girl would be dealing with in that case – it would be an extremely dangerous pregnancy that was being forced upon her.
1 Like
outlaw it with only exceptions for the life of the mother (and for those occurrences to be investigated to make sure that was actually the case).
The issue with this parenthetical, is that it genuinely should be private, protected medical information that the state, nor anyone else, has any business sticking their nose into without the permission of the individual.
Though at least you seem to acknowledge that the actual, currently existing, life of the pregnant mother is more important than that of a fetus in some stage of development.
1 Like