3 ms·

Really? I'm not very active in these conversations, but I was always under the impressions that a predominant argument in favor of abortion is that the fetus i

by dudul 4y ago

Really? I'm not very active in these conversations, but I was always under the impressions that a predominant argument in favor of abortion is that the fetus is just a bunch of cells that has no consciousness and can't feel anything anyway so who cares?

rootusrootus 4y ago
I've met damn few people on the pro-choice side who were pro-abortion, no matter how you'd like to frame it. We just don't trust the government to be involved in this very personal decision.
- troupe 4y ago
  I shared that view I thought Obama, while supporting the right to abortion said, “we already have agreement, we both respect life, we both view abortion as a moral tragedy.” This seemed to recognize that no one should really be "pro-abortion" even if they have different views as to what role the government should be involved. My view changed when I heard Ilyse Hogue give a speech where people applauded and cheered when she said she had an abortion. It was at that moment that I realized that some people are indeed pro-abortion and do not see it as a tragedy.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    I expect there are outliers, of course. Or people who've become so deeply attached to their tribal identity that their support for various wedge issues is extreme. My wife and I are very much pro-choice. At the same time, before we started our family, we had a deep discussion on the topic of abortion and how we felt about it. We decided we would only be able to abort the pregnancy if the child had trisomy 18, or was already dead. We had no other exceptions in mind. But we don't think that this is a good policy decision the government should make on behalf of its citizens. In my wider circle of friends, I don't know a single person who thinks that abortion is anything other than a tragedy. I don't know any real whack jobs, though.
    - troupe 4y ago
      The Ilyse Hogue speech wasn't at some fringe event. It was at the democratic national convention, so not people I'd consider "whack jobs." It just made me realize that my circles may tend to self select to leave out a large segment of people that have a very different view.
- mcswell 4y ago
  I would view such pro-choice people as making the same mistake that anesthesiologists once made about infants: if you can't hear the unborn complain, they must not be complaining. Therefore it's a personal decision of the mother, because you can hear her complain. The opposite side of this debate is that maybe the unborn do complain, even if we can't hear them. And it's our moral obligation to stand up for them, because they can't stand up for themselves.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    Alternatively, it is possible to find something morally objectionable while still concluding that it is not the job of the government to enforce morality.
    - anon291 4y ago
      Certainly, but the days of calling abortion 'immoral' but otherwise being pro-choice are basically over.
  - kqr 4y ago
    I've never engaged in this debate before but I'll try this once. We'll see if I regret it. From what I understand, abortions happen. Period. People get rid of unwanted children before they are viable. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen -- it happens all the time, even when it's strictly illegal with severe punishment. It's a tragedy, but it happens a lot and apparently we can't control it. The question is whether -- once it happens -- we want it to be safe, above board, with medical professionals informed. Or if we want it to happen in a moldy basement with a coat hanger, at significant risk to the woman involved. What's your take on this?
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > I've never engaged in this debate before but I'll try this once. We'll see if I regret it. > > From what I understand, abortions happen. Period. People get rid of unwanted children before they are viable. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen -- it happens all the time, even when it's strictly illegal with severe punishment. It's a tragedy, but it happens a lot and apparently we can't control it. > > The question is whether -- once it happens -- we want it to be safe, above board, with medical professionals informed. Or if we want it to happen in a moldy basement with a coat hanger, at significant risk to the woman involved. > > What's your take on this? I'm not the OP, and I can see your argument in the good faith that you intended it, but I gotta question whether the argument "It happens whether you want it to or not" is valid at all. Murder happens all the time, we still criminalize it. Rapes happen even more frequently, and have a very low successful prosecution rate, and yet we still criminalize it. Suicides happen often, harms no one but the subject, is criminalized in many jurisdictions and is also not financed by the insurance industry[1]. There are plenty more less severe actions that are criminalized, like Jaywalking, gambling, solicitation, drunk-driving, etc[2] that, in 999 out of every thousand cases, result in no harm. But, they're still criminal acts. For any $FOO, do you really want to: a) Argue that because it will still happen, we may as well make it legal and b) Because it is legal, the insurance must cover it. Because even in places where suicides are not necessarily illegal, the insurance still will not cover it! This has nothing to do with whether abortions @ whatever trimester should be legal or not, it's whether we want to go down the path of legalizing things purely because enforcement is difficult. I don't find that argument compelling at all, because if that is the reasoning then I feel that a lot of the more serious crimes should just be decriminalized due to difficulty in enforcement. [1] No death benefits are paid for suicides. [2] I'm not going anywhere near the subject of drug usage.
- MisterMower 4y ago

by dudul 4y ago

rootusrootus 4y ago

I've met damn few people on the pro-choice side who were pro-abortion, no matter how you'd like to frame it. We just don't trust the government to be involved in this very personal decision.

troupe 4y ago
I shared that view I thought Obama, while supporting the right to abortion said, “we already have agreement, we both respect life, we both view abortion as a moral tragedy.” This seemed to recognize that no one should really be "pro-abortion" even if they have different views as to what role the government should be involved. My view changed when I heard Ilyse Hogue give a speech where people applauded and cheered when she said she had an abortion. It was at that moment that I realized that some people are indeed pro-abortion and do not see it as a tragedy.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I expect there are outliers, of course. Or people who've become so deeply attached to their tribal identity that their support for various wedge issues is extreme. My wife and I are very much pro-choice. At the same time, before we started our family, we had a deep discussion on the topic of abortion and how we felt about it. We decided we would only be able to abort the pregnancy if the child had trisomy 18, or was already dead. We had no other exceptions in mind. But we don't think that this is a good policy decision the government should make on behalf of its citizens. In my wider circle of friends, I don't know a single person who thinks that abortion is anything other than a tragedy. I don't know any real whack jobs, though.
  - troupe 4y ago
    The Ilyse Hogue speech wasn't at some fringe event. It was at the democratic national convention, so not people I'd consider "whack jobs." It just made me realize that my circles may tend to self select to leave out a large segment of people that have a very different view.
mcswell 4y ago
I would view such pro-choice people as making the same mistake that anesthesiologists once made about infants: if you can't hear the unborn complain, they must not be complaining. Therefore it's a personal decision of the mother, because you can hear her complain. The opposite side of this debate is that maybe the unborn do complain, even if we can't hear them. And it's our moral obligation to stand up for them, because they can't stand up for themselves.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Alternatively, it is possible to find something morally objectionable while still concluding that it is not the job of the government to enforce morality.
  - anon291 4y ago
    Certainly, but the days of calling abortion 'immoral' but otherwise being pro-choice are basically over.
- kqr 4y ago
  I've never engaged in this debate before but I'll try this once. We'll see if I regret it. From what I understand, abortions happen. Period. People get rid of unwanted children before they are viable. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen -- it happens all the time, even when it's strictly illegal with severe punishment. It's a tragedy, but it happens a lot and apparently we can't control it. The question is whether -- once it happens -- we want it to be safe, above board, with medical professionals informed. Or if we want it to happen in a moldy basement with a coat hanger, at significant risk to the woman involved. What's your take on this?
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > I've never engaged in this debate before but I'll try this once. We'll see if I regret it. > > From what I understand, abortions happen. Period. People get rid of unwanted children before they are viable. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen -- it happens all the time, even when it's strictly illegal with severe punishment. It's a tragedy, but it happens a lot and apparently we can't control it. > > The question is whether -- once it happens -- we want it to be safe, above board, with medical professionals informed. Or if we want it to happen in a moldy basement with a coat hanger, at significant risk to the woman involved. > > What's your take on this? I'm not the OP, and I can see your argument in the good faith that you intended it, but I gotta question whether the argument "It happens whether you want it to or not" is valid at all. Murder happens all the time, we still criminalize it. Rapes happen even more frequently, and have a very low successful prosecution rate, and yet we still criminalize it. Suicides happen often, harms no one but the subject, is criminalized in many jurisdictions and is also not financed by the insurance industry[1]. There are plenty more less severe actions that are criminalized, like Jaywalking, gambling, solicitation, drunk-driving, etc[2] that, in 999 out of every thousand cases, result in no harm. But, they're still criminal acts. For any $FOO, do you really want to: a) Argue that because it will still happen, we may as well make it legal and b) Because it is legal, the insurance must cover it. Because even in places where suicides are not necessarily illegal, the insurance still will not cover it! This has nothing to do with whether abortions @ whatever trimester should be legal or not, it's whether we want to go down the path of legalizing things purely because enforcement is difficult. I don't find that argument compelling at all, because if that is the reasoning then I feel that a lot of the more serious crimes should just be decriminalized due to difficulty in enforcement. [1] No death benefits are paid for suicides. [2] I'm not going anywhere near the subject of drug usage.
MisterMower 4y ago