7 ms·

The thing is the people who are for abortion bans think if a person gets an abortion and becomes sick from it, they get what they deserve. So from a scientific

The thing is the people who are for abortion bans think if a person gets an abortion and becomes sick from it, they get what they deserve. So from a scientific perspective, they don't care, all they care about is a fetus being born, not well cared for, not born to a family that wants it, not born healthily, just born. Science has no place in their philosophy.

cagenut 2y ago
the cruelty is the point
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Kelvin506 2y ago
They can't grasp that miscarriages, which occur for many reasons even in healthy people, have exactly the same emergent medical care needs as abortions. Laws banning abortions usually also interfere with (if not outright block) access to necessary care. It's a textbook example of how theocracy is wholly incapable of sound public governance.
- jermaustin1 2y ago
  Until the mid-late 1800s, abortions were legal, and even allowed by the Catholic Church until "quickening" (when you were able to feel the fetus kicking/moving). Abortion became illegal and started to get "theocratized" for business interests by the American Medical Association for regulatory capture of "physician services" and push out homeopaths and midwives where were the administers of abortion drugs. The AMA lobbied congress and Congress passed the Comstock Act of 1873, and finally made abortion illegal in 1880. Prior to these, abortion was not only legal, but it was not even considered immoral. It was just a fact of life.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    The AMA really is the gift that keeps on giving. They're right up there with police unions.
  - boredhedgehog 2y ago
    > Until the mid-late 1800s, abortions were legal, and even allowed by the Catholic Church until "quickening" (when you were able to feel the fetus kicking/moving). No, the Church has never allowed abortion. When gradual ensoulment of the fetus was the dominant scientific theory, the quickening marked the difference between homicide and murder.
    - defrost 2y ago
      Medieval intellectuals, including Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Hildegard von Bingen, believed that the fetus only received its soul around 40 days after conception. No soul, no murder.
      - Xunjin 2y ago
        Do you have a reference? Not doubting you, just want to learn more about it.
        defrost 2y ago
        Forty plus years ago I took Philosophy mainly for twentieth century logic under Graham Priest and alongside a few peers that now do fancy Royal Institution physics, run their own philosophy departments, etc. As part of that I was roped into also taking Morals and Ethics led by a talented Jesuit type whose name escapes me and who went at depth into many such questions; I had the actual original texts by the three I mentioned in front of me back in the day. Right now, the best I can do on the fly is point at, say: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/#SoulCreaBein https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/#SoulCreaBein and state that Augustine made a strong case for soul–body dualism and considered at least three paths for the soul to join the body, along with the belief that that a soul must also leave a body, and (IIRC) wrote about "the quickening" (motion of a fetus) being a sign of a soul either transfering in part from the mother or arriving "from outside" via God, etc. He also remained uncommitted to "one true notion" for the bulk of his life (according to the Stanford and other articles I skimmed). Augustine is, I believe, the best known for writing on soul-body dualism but I have not taken a deep interest in this area of Philosophy and am by no means an expert. If you're interested in leaning more about the thoughts that humans have had on the matter that's likely a good starting point for reading material and references, going forward it'd be best to find a diverse group of other interested parties in that part of Philosophy, there will be no absolute answers, just a wealth of conjecture and reasoned arguments for sometimes opposing opinions.
shepherdjerred 2y ago
I’m going to get hate for this, but here’s my perspective. I used to be pro-choice because I thought the motivation for pro-life was religion, and I thought that had no place in determining what others can do. Eventually I started to see abortion as something closer to murder. Obviously it’s much more complicated than that, but, to me, I view the fetus as a person, even if they aren’t born yet. There are absolutely cases where abortion can be justified, e.g. for the health of the mother, or if the mother didn’t make the choice to have sex (for example, rape). In this case I feel like it’s still murder; it’s just a terrible situation overall. In other cases though, I don’t see why abortion should be assisted. Yes, people will try to terminate in other ways. That sucks, but there’s no reason why we should be helping people murder other people just because they might hurt themselves otherwise. There are a lot of other arguments (like what if the child is born into a terrible situation) that are relevant but IMO at that point you’re essentially asking who deserves to live. Definitely open to conversation on this/feel free to link any articles that you think might change my mind.
- Xunjin 2y ago
  That's why focusing on prevention is the way. And let me make a counter-argument for the sake of the discussion: Imagine a mother who had to give birth to her child and had to care until its adult life, in an abusive way, mistreating the child, hating that one human being and treating like garbage. What is worse, the “murder” of the child or raising someone in those conditions? The hypocrisy here is that most of the pro-life movement wants the child to be born but does not care at all when it's in the world. This video[0] shows an example of a politician how empathy makes you realize your error. Every so often, you have your view of the world, but how is important is your view in the expanse of the others? 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwcGQdHj7fk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwcGQdHj7fk
  - shepherdjerred 2y ago
    > What is worse, the “murder” of the child or raising someone in those conditions? Should we just begin murdering anyone who might not have a life that we define as good? That's essentially the argument that I'm hearing, except you're limiting the scope to unborn children. Though, I do completely understand your point. I just think that even in the worst of circumstances someone would generally prefer to live. I didn't have a particularly happy upbringing, and there were times I wanted to commit suicide, but I'm quite happy with where I'm at now.
sepositus 2y ago
> The thing is the people who are for abortion bans think if a person gets an abortion and becomes sick from it, they get what they deserve. I hope you don't honestly hold that generalization to be true. I can think of several people who would immediately dismiss that as false, anyways.
Yizahi 2y ago
"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn." Pastor David Barnhardt

cagenut 2y ago

the cruelty is the point

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Kelvin506 2y ago

They can't grasp that miscarriages, which occur for many reasons even in healthy people, have exactly the same emergent medical care needs as abortions. Laws banning abortions usually also interfere with (if not outright block) access to necessary care. It's a textbook example of how theocracy is wholly incapable of sound public governance.

jermaustin1 2y ago
Until the mid-late 1800s, abortions were legal, and even allowed by the Catholic Church until "quickening" (when you were able to feel the fetus kicking/moving). Abortion became illegal and started to get "theocratized" for business interests by the American Medical Association for regulatory capture of "physician services" and push out homeopaths and midwives where were the administers of abortion drugs. The AMA lobbied congress and Congress passed the Comstock Act of 1873, and finally made abortion illegal in 1880. Prior to these, abortion was not only legal, but it was not even considered immoral. It was just a fact of life.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  The AMA really is the gift that keeps on giving. They're right up there with police unions.
- boredhedgehog 2y ago
  > Until the mid-late 1800s, abortions were legal, and even allowed by the Catholic Church until "quickening" (when you were able to feel the fetus kicking/moving). No, the Church has never allowed abortion. When gradual ensoulment of the fetus was the dominant scientific theory, the quickening marked the difference between homicide and murder.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Medieval intellectuals, including Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Hildegard von Bingen, believed that the fetus only received its soul around 40 days after conception. No soul, no murder.
    - Xunjin 2y ago
      Do you have a reference? Not doubting you, just want to learn more about it.
      - defrost 2y ago
        Forty plus years ago I took Philosophy mainly for twentieth century logic under Graham Priest and alongside a few peers that now do fancy Royal Institution physics, run their own philosophy departments, etc. As part of that I was roped into also taking Morals and Ethics led by a talented Jesuit type whose name escapes me and who went at depth into many such questions; I had the actual original texts by the three I mentioned in front of me back in the day. Right now, the best I can do on the fly is point at, say: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/#SoulCreaBein https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/#SoulCreaBein and state that Augustine made a strong case for soul–body dualism and considered at least three paths for the soul to join the body, along with the belief that that a soul must also leave a body, and (IIRC) wrote about "the quickening" (motion of a fetus) being a sign of a soul either transfering in part from the mother or arriving "from outside" via God, etc. He also remained uncommitted to "one true notion" for the bulk of his life (according to the Stanford and other articles I skimmed). Augustine is, I believe, the best known for writing on soul-body dualism but I have not taken a deep interest in this area of Philosophy and am by no means an expert. If you're interested in leaning more about the thoughts that humans have had on the matter that's likely a good starting point for reading material and references, going forward it'd be best to find a diverse group of other interested parties in that part of Philosophy, there will be no absolute answers, just a wealth of conjecture and reasoned arguments for sometimes opposing opinions.

shepherdjerred 2y ago

I’m going to get hate for this, but here’s my perspective. I used to be pro-choice because I thought the motivation for pro-life was religion, and I thought that had no place in determining what others can do. Eventually I started to see abortion as something closer to murder. Obviously it’s much more complicated than that, but, to me, I view the fetus as a person, even if they aren’t born yet. There are absolutely cases where abortion can be justified, e.g. for the health of the mother, or if the mother didn’t make the choice to have sex (for example, rape). In this case I feel like it’s still murder; it’s just a terrible situation overall. In other cases though, I don’t see why abortion should be assisted. Yes, people will try to terminate in other ways. That sucks, but there’s no reason why we should be helping people murder other people just because they might hurt themselves otherwise. There are a lot of other arguments (like what if the child is born into a terrible situation) that are relevant but IMO at that point you’re essentially asking who deserves to live. Definitely open to conversation on this/feel free to link any articles that you think might change my mind.

Xunjin 2y ago
That's why focusing on prevention is the way. And let me make a counter-argument for the sake of the discussion: Imagine a mother who had to give birth to her child and had to care until its adult life, in an abusive way, mistreating the child, hating that one human being and treating like garbage. What is worse, the “murder” of the child or raising someone in those conditions? The hypocrisy here is that most of the pro-life movement wants the child to be born but does not care at all when it's in the world. This video[0] shows an example of a politician how empathy makes you realize your error. Every so often, you have your view of the world, but how is important is your view in the expanse of the others? 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwcGQdHj7fk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwcGQdHj7fk
- shepherdjerred 2y ago
  > What is worse, the “murder” of the child or raising someone in those conditions? Should we just begin murdering anyone who might not have a life that we define as good? That's essentially the argument that I'm hearing, except you're limiting the scope to unborn children. Though, I do completely understand your point. I just think that even in the worst of circumstances someone would generally prefer to live. I didn't have a particularly happy upbringing, and there were times I wanted to commit suicide, but I'm quite happy with where I'm at now.

sepositus 2y ago

> The thing is the people who are for abortion bans think if a person gets an abortion and becomes sick from it, they get what they deserve. I hope you don't honestly hold that generalization to be true. I can think of several people who would immediately dismiss that as false, anyways.

Yizahi 2y ago

"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn." Pastor David Barnhardt