Would you compromise on abortion?

[ElectEngr]

I don't think a woman who has had a consentual relationship with a close family member should be forced to have an abortion...



Later,
ElectEngr

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There is a principle which applies here and it is titled, "The Trouble Rule."

The Trouble Rule is invoked to justify any socially sanctioned killing of a human being. In it's simplest form, the Trouble Rule states, "If you cause enough trouble, we will kill you." The person in question doesn't have to be the actual cause of the trouble. It may be their existence which causes the trouble, but that doesn't really make a difference.

I don't see anything resembling fairness or due process in that.

 

[laughing dog]

But I don't have a dog in this fight. Let the womenfolk hash it out.

That right there exposes that you have taken a side. If you saw the unborn as a person to care about, and the equal of other human beings, you would have as much of a dog in this fight as you would have in any other question about killing innocent human beings. That you don't feel it is your issue, shows that you see the unborn as something less.

Not at all. One could simply say because this issue affects women more than men, I will defer to their judgment.

 

[bilby]

There is a principle which applies here and it is titled, "The Trouble Rule."

The Trouble Rule is invoked to justify any socially sanctioned killing of a human being. In it's simplest form, the Trouble Rule states, "If you cause enough trouble, we will kill you." The person in question doesn't have to be the actual cause of the trouble. It may be their existence which causes the trouble, but that doesn't really make a difference.

I don't see anything resembling fairness or due process in that.

That would be because they are not there.

Fairness and due process are all very nice, but they are not part of the laws of nature.

Life isn't fair.

 

[ElectEngr]

Should NOT be forced. ..

Corrected it

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[Blahface]

I'm going to go against the grain and say that I might be willing to take the compromise. One of the problems I see with it though is that only allowing abortions for rape may lead to false rape allegations to justify an abortion.

Abortion now might be technically legal, but it still isn't a feasible option for many pregnant women because of costs and difficulty in finding an abortion provider. If the outcome would lead to fewer women being in a position in which they are pregnant and can't effectively get an abortion, then I think it would be a fair tradeoff.

The devil is in the details though. If this is a permanent compromise, I'd be against it. I want to be able to get abortion rights later down the line. I'd also want the free birth control and sex education part to be fervently enforced.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is a principle which applies here and it is titled, "The Trouble Rule."

The Trouble Rule is invoked to justify any socially sanctioned killing of a human being. In it's simplest form, the Trouble Rule states, "If you cause enough trouble, we will kill you." The person in question doesn't have to be the actual cause of the trouble. It may be their existence which causes the trouble, but that doesn't really make a difference.

I don't see anything resembling fairness or due process in that.

There is not any fairness or due process in that. Why would you think there might be?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't see anything resembling fairness or due process in that.

That would be because they are not there.

Fairness and due process are all very nice, but they are not part of the laws of nature.

Let me introduce you to this thing called the Social Contract. It means we don't live in the state of nature anymore.

 

[Bronzeage]

That would be because they are not there.

Fairness and due process are all very nice, but they are not part of the laws of nature.

Let me introduce you to this thing called the Social Contract. It means we don't live in the state of nature anymore.

The Trouble Rule is the social contract. How else do we justify killing thousands of enemy soldiers who have no personal grievance against us?

 

[Wiploc]

Make it illegal except for death of mother, rape, incest, etc.

- It shouldn't be illegal at all.

- The exceptions for rape and incest show what's really going on. If the anti-abortion people really thought embryos were people with rights, they wouldn't tolerate those exceptions. They wouldn't make sense.

But, if women are being punished (parenthood as punishment) for enjoying sex, then it does make sense to have exceptions for circumstances in which the woman is presumed not to have enjoyed herself.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That right there exposes that you have taken a side. If you saw the unborn as a person to care about, and the equal of other human beings, you would have as much of a dog in this fight as you would have in any other question about killing innocent human beings. That you don't feel it is your issue, shows that you see the unborn as something less.

Not at all. One could simply say because this issue affects women more than men, I will defer to their judgment.

If you look at this in a pro-choice mindset, and see the unborn as not our equals, and see it as a matter of controlling a woman's body, you make sense. But if you view it as the killing of innocent equals of ours, not so much. There are just as many male unborns being aborted as female unborns. Yes, it is women who do the aborting, but since when do we abandon the innocent and defer to the killers?

 

[Juma]

Not at all. One could simply say because this issue affects women more than men, I will defer to their judgment.

If you look at this in a pro-choice mindset, and see the unborn as not our equals, and see it as a matter of controlling a woman's body, you make sense. But if you view it as the killing of innocent equals of ours, not so much. There are just as many male unborns being aborted as female unborns. Yes, it is women who do the aborting, but since when do we abandon the innocent and defer to the killers?

A featus is not "equals of ours".

 

[Bomb#20]

Not at all. One could simply say because this issue affects women more than men, I will defer to their judgment.

If you look at this in a pro-choice mindset, and see the unborn as not our equals, and see it as a matter of controlling a woman's body, you make sense. ...

He doesn't make sense. If Annie wants an abortion, I will defer to her judgment. If Bonnie doesn't want an abortion, I will defer to her judgment. If Connie and Bonnie don't want Annie to have an abortion, why on earth would I defer to their judgment when I could add my vote to Annie's, and thereby stop Connie and Bonnie from controlling Annie's body?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here is a chart



Exactly where on this chart is the point where is it proper to use the title UNBORN?

 

[ZiprHead]

For some reason, every time I see this thread title, I see "Would you compromise an abortion?

Someone mentioned leaving this up to women. I would go a step further and leave it up to the individual woman who finds themselves pregnant and may or may not want an abortion. In other words, I'm pro-choice.

 

[laughing dog]

Not at all. One could simply say because this issue affects women more than men, I will defer to their judgment.

If you look at this in a pro-choice mindset, and see the unborn as not our equals, and see it as a matter of controlling a woman's body, you make sense. But if you view it as the killing of innocent equals of ours, not so much.

Not true. Even if we see them as "our equals". People defer judgment all the time on such matters.

There are just as many male unborns being aborted as female unborns. Yes, it is women who do the aborting, but since when do we abandon the innocent and defer to the killers?

All the time. Death penalty. Drone attacks. Bombing where civilians life.

- - - Updated - - -

If you look at this in a pro-choice mindset, and see the unborn as not our equals, and see it as a matter of controlling a woman's body, you make sense. ...

He doesn't make sense. If Annie wants an abortion, I will defer to her judgment. If Bonnie doesn't want an abortion, I will defer to her judgment. If Connie and Bonnie don't want Annie to have an abortion, why on earth would I defer to their judgment when I could add my vote to Annie's, and thereby stop Connie and Bonnie from controlling Annie's body?

That doesn't make any sense because your vote wouldn't stop anything.

 

[Bronzeage]

Not at all. One could simply say because this issue affects women more than men, I will defer to their judgment.

If you look at this in a pro-choice mindset, and see the unborn as not our equals, and see it as a matter of controlling a woman's body, you make sense. But if you view it as the killing of innocent equals of ours, not so much. There are just as many male unborns being aborted as female unborns. Yes, it is women who do the aborting, but since when do we abandon the innocent and defer to the killers?

Since forever.

 

[bilby]

Here is a chart

View attachment 2122

Exactly where on this chart is the point where is it proper to use the title UNBORN?

Everywhere. None of these are images of the born.

The problem is not which are 'unborn'; it is which are 'baby'. Killing babies is wrong. Killing foetuses is the topic of much debate; killing blastocysts is the topic of less debate; and killing spermatazoans is one of the most popular hobbies in the world amongst young men.

All of these are unborn humans. There is a continuum, at one end of which killing is murder, and at the other end of which killing is a trivial everyday event. Somewhere between the two extremes, we must draw a line. There is debate about where the line should be drawn; and there is debate about who should have the authority to make that call.

There cannot be a definitively correct answer; My personal feeling is that it should therefore be left up to the one adult person who has the greatest interest - the pregnant woman - in all marginal cases; with marginality being crudely defined by the state of development of conscious awareness of the unborn, as estimated based on the best available neuroscience. Which is pretty much how it is currently decided in the civilised world.

 

[fromderinside]

Here is a chart

View attachment 2122

Exactly where on this chart is the point where is it proper to use the title UNBORN?

Everywhere. None of these are images of the born.

The problem is not which are 'unborn'; it is which are 'baby'. Killing babies is wrong. Killing foetuses is the topic of much debate; killing blastocysts is the topic of less debate; and killing spermatazoans is one of the most popular hobbies in the world amongst young men.

All of these are unborn humans. There is a continuum, at one end of which killing is murder, and at the other end of which killing is a trivial everyday event. Somewhere between the two extremes, we must draw a line. There is debate about where the line should be drawn; and there is debate about who should have the authority to make that call.

There cannot be a definitively correct answer; My personal feeling is that it should therefore be left up to the one adult person who has the greatest interest - the pregnant woman - in all marginal cases; with marginality being crudely defined by the state of development of conscious awareness of the unborn, as estimated based on the best available neuroscience. Which is pretty much how it is currently decided in the civilised world.

How many artificial inseminations have been aborted? Why ask this? If a woman doesn't choose an artificial insemination abortion, just accepts the fact that there is only so mush sustaining capacity available (there are usually two or more implants to maximize the likelihood of a successful birth), and lets the one losing the contest between embryos for resources die she is still dependent on another agent, her doctors, for providing information upon which to make a choice.

Also men don't always respect a woman's "don't".

Unless one can show it's a woman's choice, interest or no, we need other criteria. With respect to awareness, the neuroscience solution, is suspect because neuroscience is imprecise and subject to political pressure, not to mention there is a fair amount of fraud in neuroscience right now.

I'd go with able to survive on it's own without medical intervention. If, when its delivered it can survive with normal procedures such as a cleaning, a spank, sustenance delivery from a natural source or that source's preferred alternative then, wallah, problem solved. If it can't survive without aid and dies that is how things are. I don't mind a bit of quibble about "on its own" where temporary assistance, again a bit of quibble permitted, is necessary I'm happy. These quibbles are much less dangerous to women than are other 'solutions'.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here is a chart

View attachment 2122

Exactly where on this chart is the point where is it proper to use the title UNBORN?

Everywhere. None of these are images of the born.

The problem is not which are 'unborn'; it is which are 'baby'. Killing babies is wrong. Killing foetuses is the topic of much debate; killing blastocysts is the topic of less debate; and killing spermatazoans is one of the most popular hobbies in the world amongst young men.

All of these are unborn humans. There is a continuum, at one end of which killing is murder, and at the other end of which killing is a trivial everyday event. Somewhere between the two extremes, we must draw a line. There is debate about where the line should be drawn; and there is debate about who should have the authority to make that call.

There cannot be a definitively correct answer; My personal feeling is that it should therefore be left up to the one adult person who has the greatest interest - the pregnant woman - in all marginal cases; with marginality being crudely defined by the state of development of conscious awareness of the unborn, as estimated based on the best available neuroscience. Which is pretty much how it is currently decided in the civilised world.

Can a zygote be born?