6 ms·

It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person. > I can’t imagine anything LESS scummy than helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very g

It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person. > I can’t imagine anything LESS scummy than helping save the lives of those babies who are now likely very glad they were born So would it be ethical to rape someone and force them to give birth? Because the babies would be happy to be born and experiencing life? That's the same logic you're using. A fetus isn't a person. It's not sentient. It doesn't have hopes and dreams. Personally, I feel guiltier eating pork than having an abortion. Because unlike a fetus, pigs are highly intelligent, social and emotional beings. On the other hand, a woman is a person. She has the right to control her own body and her own life. If she doesn't want children, she should not be forced to have children. Even if she has sex! Yes, I know that's radical, but I believe that women should be able to have as much sex as they want, with whoever they want, even outside of marriage, without being punished with unwanted children. I know, and I'm sure you know, that's the real issue. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the concept of consequence-free sex. Christianity, the largest religion in the western world, teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong. That's why so many people who are against abortion "just happen" to be socially conservative. That's why they "just happen" to be against LGBT as well even though that has fuck-all to do with 'saving babies.' That's why they oppose comprehensive sex education and birth control access, even though that's the most obvious way to reduce unplanned pregnancies.

snikeris 4y ago
> I know, and I'm sure you know, that's the real issue. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the concept of consequence-free sex. Hard disagree that the abortion issue is primarily about consequence-free sex. You stated the issue in the first line: > A fetus isn't a person. Pro-life people vehemently disagree about this, and it's not coming from a place of prudishness. They are outraged because they feel like babies are being killed. > It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person. Isn't a fetus kind of like a tadpole? Sure, we may quibble that it isn't a person, but it is still a living being on the way to maturity. Killing a tadpole is killing _something_, right?
- mojzu 4y ago
  Often the same groups opposing abortion also oppose the most effective policies to reduce abortions (proper sex ed, free birth control and family planning services, etc.). So while I agree there is an impasse on where the human life line is drawn, I would say it's fair to argue that prudishness/puritanical beliefs are a large factor in the opposition to legal abortion
  - elforce002 4y ago
    It's interesting. I'd bet money that if pro-life people accept all those things, pro-abortion people will go with: "what about rape, incest, etc...?" and if they allow specifically those scenarios, they still won't accept. Bet money this is the scenario that will play out if such things were to be pushed. Accountability is kryptonite for pro-abortion people.
    - mojzu 4y ago
      I'm a little confused, on the one hand you appear to be arguing that victims of rape and incest should be required to bear their abusers children but on the other arguing that pro-choice people aren't holding themselves accountable. In cases of rape or incest how is the victim in any way responsible for their situation?
      - elforce002 4y ago
        I can't imagine the physical and psychological damage women that were raped have to deal on a daily basis. We should castrate those men and let them in prison for the rest of their lives but the baby is not responsible of this heinous act. You know that less than 1% of abortion cases are because cof these evil acts. Even if there's an intent on having a discussion (you could do a quick search on yt) on the premise of allowing abortions for those cases, pro-abortion people use rape and incest cases to justify the 99% which are not because of that.
- rcoveson 4y ago
  I'm outraged because nobody in this thread is as interested in drawing a line somewhere between "postcoital contraception" and "aborting a nearly-viable fetus" as they are in holding the line on either side of "fertilized embryo" and "infant". I guess I'll add to the chorus of people who "just don't understand the other side" in saying that I don't understand either side. Arguing for fertilized embryo rights makes no sense to me. But arguing in favor of abortion and not even mentioning where the line is drawn makes just as little sense. Oft-repeated phrases like "a fetus isn't a person" sound scary to me. It's casual dismissiveness that falls back on pure terminology, and the thing being dismissed might have a brain comparable to that of an infant. Specificity is extremely important here. If people are going to act like abortion rights are the most obviously ethical thing in the world, I really wish they'd stop using the word fetus. The obvious, strong argument for abortion only applies to abortions before the fetus is morally person-like. Once a fetus is sufficiently person-like, we must at least admit that the moral calculus is complicated, since at that point there's more than one significant outcome for a feeling, thinking thing.
jonhohle 4y ago
A fetus isn’t a person like a black person or Native American wasn’t a full person, like children weren’t full people, or like women weren’t given the same rights as men?
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Does a black person require their every biological process be maintained by the body of another? If yes, then OK your comparison makes sense.
  - jonhohle 4y ago
    There are plenty of birthed people that are in that state. Mostly infants, but many with developmental disabilities or other conditions. Eugenics had the same idea. Do you want To be the arbiter of the minimal set of bodily functions required to be human? What if you end up in a state with one less than the value chosen, should someone else be able to decide whether you live or die?
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      There is no "one less than the value chosen" in this case - the embryo is 100% reliant on the mother for every single possible life function - circulation, respiration, digestion, homeostasis, everything. The only "babies" that are "born" in that state are early miscarriages. This is the slippery slope fallacy writ large, in the same way as comparing a minority to an embryo was.
      - jonhohle 4y ago
        You think that a 20 week old child has no chance of living outside a womb? The current earliest premie is 21 weeks. It will only go lower with better technology. The slope slips to its logical conclusion: conception. Here’s a thought exercise: take whatever you would consider a viable human and rewind to one developed cell earlier. Is that a human? Repeat until you can guarantee it is not a human. How far do you have to go until that is true for all instances of all fetuses? I came to the conclusion that an embryo, which can live and grow outside of a womb is the earliest logical point to consider the organism a human and make subsequent opinions accordingly.
ralfd 4y ago
Do you find killing a new born baby reprehensible? If no this is a _very_ minority view you have. If yes what is the difference between the new born to a 9 month old fetus in the womb? Then what about an 8 month old? Most would protect it too against abortion. And so on. A compromising time limit solution for which elective abortions before is permitted and after is forbidden is the only pragmatic solution.
- ako 4y ago
  We have 6 fertilised eggs somewhere in a freezer (IVF), if we throw them in the garbage bin, is that murder/abortion?
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    Many pro-life would say yes. The pro-life stance on IVF is to only fertilize as many eggs as you will bring to term.
  - snikeris 4y ago
    Let's just say that it is murder/abortion of 6 fertilized eggs. However, many people are fine with such murder, as they are with the murder of lettuce leaves. It seems the issue is always what is being murdered. The more human-like the thing being murdered is, the more outrageous it is. Plan B, not so outrageous because it's just a few cells. 20+ weeks, people are getting outraged. A dog? Pretty human-like, people don't like dogs being murdered.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      Plan B is not an abortifacient. It prevents fertilization from ever taking place. Anyone against Plan B is entirely making an argument about casual sex.
      - snikeris 4y ago
        I think it’s irrelevant to the discussion, but it seems like it’s not settled: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313438/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313438/
WillPostForFood 4y ago
A fetus isn't a person. It's not sentient. It doesn't have hopes and dreams. Defining a person as someone with hopes and dreams is nice poetically, but not great legally. Quite a few adults go through life without hope or dreams, but are still people. A one month old child isn't developed enough to have hopes and dreams, but is a person. Stepping away from the metaphor of hopes and dreams, you can start to observe REM movement in utero at 28 weeks. So in a literal sense, it is likely fetuses do dream. This isn't an easy issue with a clear science driven answer. A clump of four cells isn't a person, but there is a very reasonable case for 39 week old fetus being as much of a person as a 1 day old infant born at 38 weeks.
- trs8080 4y ago
  > Stepping away from the metaphor of hopes and dreams, you can start to observe REM movement in utero at 28 weeks. So in a literal sense, it is likely fetuses do dream. > A clump of four cells isn't a person, but there is a very reasonable case for 39 week old fetus being as much of a person as a 1 day old infant born at 38 weeks. But only 1% of abortions in the US happen after 21 weeks [1]. So there's a blanket ban despite 99% of abortions happening before that 28 week cutoff? How does that track? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm#T10_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm#T10_down
jansen555 4y ago
Depends at what stage. Current abortion friendly states do allow killing unborn babies at 7-9mths pregnacies. They follow your definition of fetus isnt people even though these "fetus" can survive even back 100 years ago without modern healthcare interventions. With modern healthcare, the number can dip as low as 4-5mths. Essentially you are ok with exterminating babies (the moment this fetus pull out of the world they are babies and can survive and actually some do cry but executed in abortion clinics). Not every pregnacies are at the first few weeks of pregnacies. Those if you choose to consider as non people fetus, a lot will agree. Unfortunately majority of pregnancies are terminated in the range of 4-9mths. I suggest you do a bit of research a dark market exist of those fetus organic materials that these clinics are engaged in. Think for a second, these clinics are not free to operate. The people coming in for the service isnt paying exorbitant fees like those in typical hospitals charging patients or insurance. Something else must befunding these...if you say tax, then isnt it weird, people getting forced to pay for others misadventure? The ruling is exactly that. Some states that are pro can go on as usual. Some states that are not pro, can stop funding it. At the end of day each states behavior dictate by the people votes. Why a small minority groups insist everyone else to food their bills?
ejb999 4y ago
>>She has the right to control her own body and her own life You know, the sad thing is the party whose mantra has been 'my body my choice' for the past 40+ years, completely lost that moral high ground when they started demanding that people get vaccinated against their will - and yes, there were plenty of people talking about forcibly injecting people, even though it never happened, and yes abortion vs vaccines are not the same thing - but its either 'my body my choice' or it's not - the message and meaning was crystal clear, up until 2 years ago. The were no shortage of pro-forced vaccine people who were saying 'yes, the government can force you to do things to your body against your will' - and now in light of the abortion debate trying to make the 'my body my choice' argument again just rings a bit hollower. I said it to my spouse the first few days when you had mainstream politicians and talking heads on TV calling for forced covid injections, I said 'this is going to blow up in their face', and, imo, it did, the absoluteness of 'my body my choice' argument, is no longer as clear. Did this directly cause the SC to revoke RvW, certainly not, but imo, the 'my body my choice' argument has been tainted.
rayiner 4y ago
> It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person. At 13 weeks, a fetus looks a heck of a lot like a baby: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Threedimensional-3d-ultrasound-assessment-of-fetus-in-the-first-trimester-showing_fig1_287702538 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Threedimensional-3d-ultr... (3D ultrasound image). And Roe guarantees elective abortions for another 9-10 weeks after that. > A fetus isn't a person. It's not sentient. It doesn't have hopes and dreams. Neither does my infant! > Lots of people are uncomfortable with the concept of consequence-free sex. Lots of people are uncomfortable with ending human to eliminate the predictable consequences of sex.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > At 13 weeks, a fetus looks a heck of a lot like a baby: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Threedimensional-3d-ultr https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Threedimensional-3d-ultr... (3D ultrasound image) Is that the only threshold? You should look at what dog and elephant fetuses look like.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    At 13 weeks, a human fetus is unmistakably human. It has a human face, fingers and toes, etc. https://www.akronchildrens.org/inside/2022/02/22/confessions-of-prenatal-ultrasound-techs/ https://www.akronchildrens.org/inside/2022/02/22/confessions... Perhaps you’re thinking of embryonic development?
elforce002 4y ago
And you just prove his point: There won't be any middle ground since you already think fetuses are not "human beings" . Let's not use religion and go with science. Which biologist, scientist, or doctor is willing to acknowledge and let alone prove that a fetus (unborn human per oxford dictionary) is not human? Take in consideration that the whole scientific community has to acknowledge these assumptions after lots of tests, etc... Even news outlets are broadcasting women who are saying "hookup culture would be decimated" meaning they are using abortions as birth control. There's no angle (scientific vor otherwise) to defend abortions other than convenience and lack of accountability. R vs. W literally hands on the vote to states. California, NY, etc... won't change their policies.
bmacho 4y ago
> So would it be ethical to rape someone and force them to give birth? Because the babies would be happy to be born and experiencing life? That's the same logic you're using. People happen to be in a bad situation. There are poor people, ill people, robbed people, raped people, etc. Forcing people that happen to be raped to not to kill is ethical, and not by Christianity, but by virtually by every moral and ethics that exist.
Grustaf 4y ago
> So would it be ethical to rape someone and force them to give birth? Because the babies would be happy to be born and experiencing life? That's the same logic you're using. How could it possibly be ethical to rape someone? Your line of reasoning is really out there.

snikeris 4y ago

> I know, and I'm sure you know, that's the real issue. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the concept of consequence-free sex. Hard disagree that the abortion issue is primarily about consequence-free sex. You stated the issue in the first line: > A fetus isn't a person. Pro-life people vehemently disagree about this, and it's not coming from a place of prudishness. They are outraged because they feel like babies are being killed. > It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person. Isn't a fetus kind of like a tadpole? Sure, we may quibble that it isn't a person, but it is still a living being on the way to maturity. Killing a tadpole is killing _something_, right?

mojzu 4y ago
Often the same groups opposing abortion also oppose the most effective policies to reduce abortions (proper sex ed, free birth control and family planning services, etc.). So while I agree there is an impasse on where the human life line is drawn, I would say it's fair to argue that prudishness/puritanical beliefs are a large factor in the opposition to legal abortion
- elforce002 4y ago
  It's interesting. I'd bet money that if pro-life people accept all those things, pro-abortion people will go with: "what about rape, incest, etc...?" and if they allow specifically those scenarios, they still won't accept. Bet money this is the scenario that will play out if such things were to be pushed. Accountability is kryptonite for pro-abortion people.
  - mojzu 4y ago
    I'm a little confused, on the one hand you appear to be arguing that victims of rape and incest should be required to bear their abusers children but on the other arguing that pro-choice people aren't holding themselves accountable. In cases of rape or incest how is the victim in any way responsible for their situation?
    - elforce002 4y ago
      I can't imagine the physical and psychological damage women that were raped have to deal on a daily basis. We should castrate those men and let them in prison for the rest of their lives but the baby is not responsible of this heinous act. You know that less than 1% of abortion cases are because cof these evil acts. Even if there's an intent on having a discussion (you could do a quick search on yt) on the premise of allowing abortions for those cases, pro-abortion people use rape and incest cases to justify the 99% which are not because of that.
rcoveson 4y ago
I'm outraged because nobody in this thread is as interested in drawing a line somewhere between "postcoital contraception" and "aborting a nearly-viable fetus" as they are in holding the line on either side of "fertilized embryo" and "infant". I guess I'll add to the chorus of people who "just don't understand the other side" in saying that I don't understand either side. Arguing for fertilized embryo rights makes no sense to me. But arguing in favor of abortion and not even mentioning where the line is drawn makes just as little sense. Oft-repeated phrases like "a fetus isn't a person" sound scary to me. It's casual dismissiveness that falls back on pure terminology, and the thing being dismissed might have a brain comparable to that of an infant. Specificity is extremely important here. If people are going to act like abortion rights are the most obviously ethical thing in the world, I really wish they'd stop using the word fetus. The obvious, strong argument for abortion only applies to abortions before the fetus is morally person-like. Once a fetus is sufficiently person-like, we must at least admit that the moral calculus is complicated, since at that point there's more than one significant outcome for a feeling, thinking thing.

jonhohle 4y ago

A fetus isn’t a person like a black person or Native American wasn’t a full person, like children weren’t full people, or like women weren’t given the same rights as men?

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Does a black person require their every biological process be maintained by the body of another? If yes, then OK your comparison makes sense.
- jonhohle 4y ago
  There are plenty of birthed people that are in that state. Mostly infants, but many with developmental disabilities or other conditions. Eugenics had the same idea. Do you want To be the arbiter of the minimal set of bodily functions required to be human? What if you end up in a state with one less than the value chosen, should someone else be able to decide whether you live or die?
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    There is no "one less than the value chosen" in this case - the embryo is 100% reliant on the mother for every single possible life function - circulation, respiration, digestion, homeostasis, everything. The only "babies" that are "born" in that state are early miscarriages. This is the slippery slope fallacy writ large, in the same way as comparing a minority to an embryo was.
    - jonhohle 4y ago
      You think that a 20 week old child has no chance of living outside a womb? The current earliest premie is 21 weeks. It will only go lower with better technology. The slope slips to its logical conclusion: conception. Here’s a thought exercise: take whatever you would consider a viable human and rewind to one developed cell earlier. Is that a human? Repeat until you can guarantee it is not a human. How far do you have to go until that is true for all instances of all fetuses? I came to the conclusion that an embryo, which can live and grow outside of a womb is the earliest logical point to consider the organism a human and make subsequent opinions accordingly.

ralfd 4y ago

Do you find killing a new born baby reprehensible? If no this is a _very_ minority view you have. If yes what is the difference between the new born to a 9 month old fetus in the womb? Then what about an 8 month old? Most would protect it too against abortion. And so on. A compromising time limit solution for which elective abortions before is permitted and after is forbidden is the only pragmatic solution.

ako 4y ago
We have 6 fertilised eggs somewhere in a freezer (IVF), if we throw them in the garbage bin, is that murder/abortion?
- hellojesus 4y ago
  Many pro-life would say yes. The pro-life stance on IVF is to only fertilize as many eggs as you will bring to term.
- snikeris 4y ago
  Let's just say that it is murder/abortion of 6 fertilized eggs. However, many people are fine with such murder, as they are with the murder of lettuce leaves. It seems the issue is always what is being murdered. The more human-like the thing being murdered is, the more outrageous it is. Plan B, not so outrageous because it's just a few cells. 20+ weeks, people are getting outraged. A dog? Pretty human-like, people don't like dogs being murdered.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Plan B is not an abortifacient. It prevents fertilization from ever taking place. Anyone against Plan B is entirely making an argument about casual sex.
    - snikeris 4y ago
      I think it’s irrelevant to the discussion, but it seems like it’s not settled: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313438/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313438/

WillPostForFood 4y ago

A fetus isn't a person. It's not sentient. It doesn't have hopes and dreams. Defining a person as someone with hopes and dreams is nice poetically, but not great legally. Quite a few adults go through life without hope or dreams, but are still people. A one month old child isn't developed enough to have hopes and dreams, but is a person. Stepping away from the metaphor of hopes and dreams, you can start to observe REM movement in utero at 28 weeks. So in a literal sense, it is likely fetuses do dream. This isn't an easy issue with a clear science driven answer. A clump of four cells isn't a person, but there is a very reasonable case for 39 week old fetus being as much of a person as a 1 day old infant born at 38 weeks.

trs8080 4y ago
> Stepping away from the metaphor of hopes and dreams, you can start to observe REM movement in utero at 28 weeks. So in a literal sense, it is likely fetuses do dream. > A clump of four cells isn't a person, but there is a very reasonable case for 39 week old fetus being as much of a person as a 1 day old infant born at 38 weeks. But only 1% of abortions in the US happen after 21 weeks [1]. So there's a blanket ban despite 99% of abortions happening before that 28 week cutoff? How does that track? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm#T10_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm#T10_down

jansen555 4y ago

Depends at what stage. Current abortion friendly states do allow killing unborn babies at 7-9mths pregnacies. They follow your definition of fetus isnt people even though these "fetus" can survive even back 100 years ago without modern healthcare interventions. With modern healthcare, the number can dip as low as 4-5mths. Essentially you are ok with exterminating babies (the moment this fetus pull out of the world they are babies and can survive and actually some do cry but executed in abortion clinics). Not every pregnacies are at the first few weeks of pregnacies. Those if you choose to consider as non people fetus, a lot will agree. Unfortunately majority of pregnancies are terminated in the range of 4-9mths. I suggest you do a bit of research a dark market exist of those fetus organic materials that these clinics are engaged in. Think for a second, these clinics are not free to operate. The people coming in for the service isnt paying exorbitant fees like those in typical hospitals charging patients or insurance. Something else must befunding these...if you say tax, then isnt it weird, people getting forced to pay for others misadventure? The ruling is exactly that. Some states that are pro can go on as usual. Some states that are not pro, can stop funding it. At the end of day each states behavior dictate by the people votes. Why a small minority groups insist everyone else to food their bills?

ejb999 4y ago

>>She has the right to control her own body and her own life You know, the sad thing is the party whose mantra has been 'my body my choice' for the past 40+ years, completely lost that moral high ground when they started demanding that people get vaccinated against their will - and yes, there were plenty of people talking about forcibly injecting people, even though it never happened, and yes abortion vs vaccines are not the same thing - but its either 'my body my choice' or it's not - the message and meaning was crystal clear, up until 2 years ago. The were no shortage of pro-forced vaccine people who were saying 'yes, the government can force you to do things to your body against your will' - and now in light of the abortion debate trying to make the 'my body my choice' argument again just rings a bit hollower. I said it to my spouse the first few days when you had mainstream politicians and talking heads on TV calling for forced covid injections, I said 'this is going to blow up in their face', and, imo, it did, the absoluteness of 'my body my choice' argument, is no longer as clear. Did this directly cause the SC to revoke RvW, certainly not, but imo, the 'my body my choice' argument has been tainted.

rayiner 4y ago

> It's not killing someone. A fetus isn't a person. At 13 weeks, a fetus looks a heck of a lot like a baby: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Threedimensional-3d-ultrasound-assessment-of-fetus-in-the-first-trimester-showing_fig1_287702538 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Threedimensional-3d-ultr... (3D ultrasound image). And Roe guarantees elective abortions for another 9-10 weeks after that. > A fetus isn't a person. It's not sentient. It doesn't have hopes and dreams. Neither does my infant! > Lots of people are uncomfortable with the concept of consequence-free sex. Lots of people are uncomfortable with ending human to eliminate the predictable consequences of sex.

sofixa 4y ago
> At 13 weeks, a fetus looks a heck of a lot like a baby: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Threedimensional-3d-ultr https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Threedimensional-3d-ultr... (3D ultrasound image) Is that the only threshold? You should look at what dog and elephant fetuses look like.
- rayiner 4y ago
  At 13 weeks, a human fetus is unmistakably human. It has a human face, fingers and toes, etc. https://www.akronchildrens.org/inside/2022/02/22/confessions-of-prenatal-ultrasound-techs/ https://www.akronchildrens.org/inside/2022/02/22/confessions... Perhaps you’re thinking of embryonic development?

elforce002 4y ago

And you just prove his point: There won't be any middle ground since you already think fetuses are not "human beings" . Let's not use religion and go with science. Which biologist, scientist, or doctor is willing to acknowledge and let alone prove that a fetus (unborn human per oxford dictionary) is not human? Take in consideration that the whole scientific community has to acknowledge these assumptions after lots of tests, etc... Even news outlets are broadcasting women who are saying "hookup culture would be decimated" meaning they are using abortions as birth control. There's no angle (scientific vor otherwise) to defend abortions other than convenience and lack of accountability. R vs. W literally hands on the vote to states. California, NY, etc... won't change their policies.

bmacho 4y ago

> So would it be ethical to rape someone and force them to give birth? Because the babies would be happy to be born and experiencing life? That's the same logic you're using. People happen to be in a bad situation. There are poor people, ill people, robbed people, raped people, etc. Forcing people that happen to be raped to not to kill is ethical, and not by Christianity, but by virtually by every moral and ethics that exist.

Grustaf 4y ago

> So would it be ethical to rape someone and force them to give birth? Because the babies would be happy to be born and experiencing life? That's the same logic you're using. How could it possibly be ethical to rape someone? Your line of reasoning is really out there.