5 ms·

“It’s wrong to force people into childbirth against their will” holds up well as a coherent, objective moral value statement. I’m a bit baffled that you suppose

“It’s wrong to force people into childbirth against their will” holds up well as a coherent, objective moral value statement. I’m a bit baffled that you supposedly can’t see the morality argument for respecting bodily autonomy. On the other side, many of the politicians currently running for office as Republicans in my state have been dragged so deep into the anti-abortion purity spiral that they’re publicly insisting women should die rather than terminate a non-viable and life-threatening pregnancy.

User23 4y ago
> “It’s wrong to force people into childbirth against their will” holds up well as a coherent, objective moral value statement. Right. This is why rape is illegal.
- escapedmoose 4y ago
  And yet it still happens, and it continues to be one of many reasons why someone might need an abortion. Notably, the politicians I mentioned in my original reply all have professed their intent to force women to give birth in cases of rape.
  - User23 4y ago
    It's wrong to put an innocent human being to death. One or both of that innocent person's parents being a criminal is morally irrelevant. Civilized societies don't hold children guilty for parental acts. Put in simple terms: two wrongs don't make a right. Nobody needs to intentionally kill an innocent human being, ever. Full stop. Bear in mind that unintentionally killing an innocent human being can be morally acceptable, such as in the case of a medical intervention to save the mother's life. The intent is to save the mother, and if the necessary treatment unfortunately ends the innocent baby's life that is a tragedy, but not immoral. One might say the outcome is the same, but in ethics intent is very important.
    - escapedmoose 4y ago
      It’s also wrong to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their will. Civilized societies don’t coerce living people (or even cadavers for that matter) to give up their body parts to save the life of another. Edit: And returning to my original point from the earlier comment, the anti-abortion purity spiral has led these politicians to vow to outlaw abortion even to save the life of the mother. They apparently don’t agree with your evaluation of intent in the eyes of the law.
      - User23 4y ago
        > It’s also wrong to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their will. I suppose then that you oppose vaccine mandates? > Civilized societies don’t coerce living people (or even cadavers for that matter) to give up their body parts to save the life of another. It's fortunate that childbirth typically leaves the mother with all of her body parts. > the anti-abortion purity spiral has led these politicians to vow to outlaw abortion even to save the life of the mother. They apparently don’t agree with your evaluation of intent in the eyes of the law. By definition an abortion is an intentional killing. The killing of the child isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the primary purpose of the procedure. How does intentionally killing the innocent child in itself save the life of the mother? A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion. For example an ectopic pregnancy will kill the mother if not treated and all effective treatments unfortunately kill the child. That doesn't make it an abortion. Furthermore, medical technology has come a long way. It's often an option to induce a premature delivery rather than just kill an innocent human being. And the odds are better than they've ever been that the baby will even survive and be healthy.
        escapedmoose 4y ago
        > I suppose then that you oppose vaccine mandates? Yes, it is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure against their will. > It's fortunate that childbirth typically leaves the mother with all of her body parts. This is, simply, factually incorrect. > By definition an abortion is an intentional killing. The killing of the child isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the primary purpose of the procedure. Also factually incorrect. > A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion. Dude, it takes a 3-second Google search to determine that this is false
TimTheTinker 4y ago
> “It’s wrong to force people into childbirth against their will” holds up well as a coherent, objective moral value statement. Those who want to get abortions aren't being forced into childbirth against their will, unless there was rape involved. Pro-abortion activists seem to think they only have (or ought to have) a choice after they're already pregnant. The real choice was months earlier.
- random-human 4y ago
  The no exceptions clauses includes no exceptions for either rape or incest. > The real choice was months earlier. That is a large blanket assumption. Condom breakage, having a specific gene which makes female birth control very unreliable [1], partner reproductive coercion [2]. Among others. Given enough time, moral purity spirals into attacking then punishing the people wronged or having found themselves in an unfortunate situation. In this particular case, condom breakage, an unfortunate gene one didn't know they had, finding out too late you trusted the wrong partner [sneaky birth control sabotage] etc. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448146/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448146/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3282154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3282154/
  - TimTheTinker 4y ago
    By modern values, yes those are reasons to allow abortions. But modern values devalue life in part because they also devalue sex. They treat sex casually, as though it isn't the outward symbol and seal of a lifelong commitment and promise, and the very means by which more human life is created. There would be no felt need for abortion to exist if sex and human life were both valued as they ought to be - as sacred, as gifts with a particular design not our own, as capable of great glory when used rightly -- and great devastation when used wrongly. Consider how delicately and carefully we handle matters when the stakes are high - when there's the possibility of gaining or losing much based on our decisions. Sex and marriage and family ought to be held in high regard, because the stakes are so high. They can end so well -- or incredibly badly when handled outside their designed operating parameters. Abortion to me represents the human collateral and fallout from having abandoned a right view of sex and marriage and family. So much death. Ideas have consequences, indeed. As a side note, a high view of sex and life also increases the travesty that rape is. It's so much worse, morally speaking, than liberals can say it is given their moral framework.

User23 4y ago

> “It’s wrong to force people into childbirth against their will” holds up well as a coherent, objective moral value statement. Right. This is why rape is illegal.

escapedmoose 4y ago
And yet it still happens, and it continues to be one of many reasons why someone might need an abortion. Notably, the politicians I mentioned in my original reply all have professed their intent to force women to give birth in cases of rape.
- User23 4y ago
  It's wrong to put an innocent human being to death. One or both of that innocent person's parents being a criminal is morally irrelevant. Civilized societies don't hold children guilty for parental acts. Put in simple terms: two wrongs don't make a right. Nobody needs to intentionally kill an innocent human being, ever. Full stop. Bear in mind that unintentionally killing an innocent human being can be morally acceptable, such as in the case of a medical intervention to save the mother's life. The intent is to save the mother, and if the necessary treatment unfortunately ends the innocent baby's life that is a tragedy, but not immoral. One might say the outcome is the same, but in ethics intent is very important.
  - escapedmoose 4y ago
    It’s also wrong to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their will. Civilized societies don’t coerce living people (or even cadavers for that matter) to give up their body parts to save the life of another. Edit: And returning to my original point from the earlier comment, the anti-abortion purity spiral has led these politicians to vow to outlaw abortion even to save the life of the mother. They apparently don’t agree with your evaluation of intent in the eyes of the law.
    - User23 4y ago
      > It’s also wrong to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their will. I suppose then that you oppose vaccine mandates? > Civilized societies don’t coerce living people (or even cadavers for that matter) to give up their body parts to save the life of another. It's fortunate that childbirth typically leaves the mother with all of her body parts. > the anti-abortion purity spiral has led these politicians to vow to outlaw abortion even to save the life of the mother. They apparently don’t agree with your evaluation of intent in the eyes of the law. By definition an abortion is an intentional killing. The killing of the child isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the primary purpose of the procedure. How does intentionally killing the innocent child in itself save the life of the mother? A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion. For example an ectopic pregnancy will kill the mother if not treated and all effective treatments unfortunately kill the child. That doesn't make it an abortion. Furthermore, medical technology has come a long way. It's often an option to induce a premature delivery rather than just kill an innocent human being. And the odds are better than they've ever been that the baby will even survive and be healthy.
      - escapedmoose 4y ago
        > I suppose then that you oppose vaccine mandates? Yes, it is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure against their will. > It's fortunate that childbirth typically leaves the mother with all of her body parts. This is, simply, factually incorrect. > By definition an abortion is an intentional killing. The killing of the child isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the primary purpose of the procedure. Also factually incorrect. > A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion. Dude, it takes a 3-second Google search to determine that this is false

TimTheTinker 4y ago

> “It’s wrong to force people into childbirth against their will” holds up well as a coherent, objective moral value statement. Those who want to get abortions aren't being forced into childbirth against their will, unless there was rape involved. Pro-abortion activists seem to think they only have (or ought to have) a choice after they're already pregnant. The real choice was months earlier.

random-human 4y ago
The no exceptions clauses includes no exceptions for either rape or incest. > The real choice was months earlier. That is a large blanket assumption. Condom breakage, having a specific gene which makes female birth control very unreliable [1], partner reproductive coercion [2]. Among others. Given enough time, moral purity spirals into attacking then punishing the people wronged or having found themselves in an unfortunate situation. In this particular case, condom breakage, an unfortunate gene one didn't know they had, finding out too late you trusted the wrong partner [sneaky birth control sabotage] etc. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448146/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448146/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3282154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3282154/
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  By modern values, yes those are reasons to allow abortions. But modern values devalue life in part because they also devalue sex. They treat sex casually, as though it isn't the outward symbol and seal of a lifelong commitment and promise, and the very means by which more human life is created. There would be no felt need for abortion to exist if sex and human life were both valued as they ought to be - as sacred, as gifts with a particular design not our own, as capable of great glory when used rightly -- and great devastation when used wrongly. Consider how delicately and carefully we handle matters when the stakes are high - when there's the possibility of gaining or losing much based on our decisions. Sex and marriage and family ought to be held in high regard, because the stakes are so high. They can end so well -- or incredibly badly when handled outside their designed operating parameters. Abortion to me represents the human collateral and fallout from having abandoned a right view of sex and marriage and family. So much death. Ideas have consequences, indeed. As a side note, a high view of sex and life also increases the travesty that rape is. It's so much worse, morally speaking, than liberals can say it is given their moral framework.