Who here is pro abortion?
I'm against abortion, but I don't want the government to have anything to do with it. If government declared war on abortions, in five years, men would be having them! Such is the law of unintended consequences.
But even saying I'm for or against abortion falls into the crass, political, one-dimensional thinking. Obviously in cases of medical necessity, I'm FOR abortion, just like when you have a gangrenous leg, I'm all for amputating it. I can support your right to amputate your own limbs when you decide necessary without being "pro-amputation."
The fact is that human life begins at conception. That means that an abortion is ending a unique human life. That doesn't mean it's always wrong. That just means that it should be taken seriously.
If you believe that as humans, we own ourselves, how do you square the conundrum of a pregnant woman who owns herself with a baby growing inside her that also owns itself?
The answer is actually relatively simple. If you own your own body, you have no obligation to use it to support another life against your will. That's why it's morally repugnant to deny a woman an abortion when she's been raped. While I would still want to see that child born rather than aborted, I refuse to continue that rape by having the state point a gun at the mother.
As for all of the other cases, what I have to say as a man is of almost no relevance. Being pregnant means being the custodian of another life. That's a deeply personal and private relationship between mother and child. Almost everyone would agree that a mother SHOULD have an abortion if it threatens her life. The question as to how much of a threat requires abortion ... will always be decided by the mother, in private if she desires, with a doctor's help if society does not deny her the right to seek treatment, and hopefully with the love and respect of everyone around her.
So to all of you who pretend to care about this issue but use petty insults, bad arguments, poor logic, virtue signaling, polarization, and demonization of those who disagree with you, get real. You don't really care about human life as much as you care about your own moralistic grandstanding. Even the "pro-abortion" people want there to be less abortions. Let's come together to make this happen by supporting all mothers and future mothers to support every pregnancy possible with love and kindness.
Regardless of whether you're "pro-life," "pro-choice" or just hate those labels as much as I do, if you really care about life and freedom, GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF EVERYTHING!
Well done, Adam. Get the "big goombah" divide and conquer DISTRACTION addressed early!
The TRUTH of reducing abortions by being supportive of unwed mothers is so painfully obvious, and yet that one seems too complicated for consideration by folks who have a side to defend.
Agreed. Instead of wasting all of the money on the political circus of whether or not it should be legal, we should focus our energies on decreasing the contributing factors to unwanted pregnancies.
Strengthening familial bonds, increasing education, teaching self-love and self-respect, ensuring that people are supported through community so that they never enter the mental space that could justify the harming of another for selfish means; instead of arguing the morality of a side effect of an impoverished society.
If you believe that as humans, we own ourselves, how do you square the conundrum of a pregnant woman who owns herself with a baby growing inside her that also owns itself?
I do it in two ways, the first is self defense, if someone forced themselves inside of you or even if you consented to allowing them to enter you don't you have a right to tell them to get out and defend yourself from that?
The second is not as good an argument but solves a lot of the legal and ethical problems, and that is that children are property. Under this paradigm parents would be allowed to abort their children until the 75th trimester.
For me what is most repugnant about our policy of legal abortions is that the policy was designed and has functioned as a black genocide, it was implemented as a eugenics program to eliminate the poor and minorities and has been doing so from the start. Today more black babies are aborted in NYC than born alive, that's racist.
I don't think the force argument is a very good analogy. Except for some edge cases (e.g. rape), most pregnancies occur because the person who is pregnant voluntarily participated in an act knowing there was some amount of risk of pregnancy occurring. In other words, they did something that caused it to happen. It isn't the baby's fault who arguably now has the right to life (which is the most important right you can have in my view). The problem with your first argument is that you could apply it to a child who is 6 years old if you wanted to (which dovetails into your second example...which doesn't resolve ethical problems at all...just legal ones).
Having said all that, except for perhaps prohibiting most late term abortions, I don't think the state being involved will do more good than harm.
Consider two gay men copulating, they started off consensually but now the one on the bottom wants to stop, does he have a right to use force to get the other fellow out?
Sure, but that's a piss poor analogy. The baby doesn't have any choice in the matter.
in my analogy does the top? no right? he can GTFO or face the consequences.
Again, the baby has no such choice.
yeah, that's right, it doesn't, which is probably good since a fetus has no agency.
I don't know what you mean by agency in this context.
"I'm against abortion, but I don't want the government to have anything to do with it."
I agree you 100% on this.
"If you own your own body, you have no obligation to use it to support another life against your will."
If you're forbbiden to abort, you obviously have to bring that baby to the world.
In my opinion, the problem is that this person will probably be a bad parent, the child will get adopted, etc.
Much agreed. Even if I don't like it, who am I to force my understanding on somebody else's life? Thats violence. I don't go and punch people for making other choises I wouldn't make either :)
Outstanding article!
I agree 100%
It is disconcerting listen to one women say she feels a connection with the child that is growing inside her, and another women saying, she can abort it because its just a pile of cells, not a human.
Further, the real reason for abortions in first world countries is a dirty secret women will never talk about. It is their trump card. Their ace in the hole. In this day and age, we still accept "oops, I got pregnant"? Most often it was planned and premeditated.
The way to stop abortions is to give rights to men. A woman can choose to abort or have the baby. The woman can decide to keep the baby or give it up for adoption (or leave it at a fire house).
A man cannot decide anything. He will pay child support or he will go to jail. Even if the man never had sex with her. Sometimes even when it is not his child. The man has no choices.
The way to stop abortions is to give the men the right to abort fatherhood. To say that he is not financially tied to the fetus.
That govern-cement compels men to pay for all the children, and twice if he is named the father, is the reason this argument has been dragging on so long. Get govern-cement out of forcing child support.
(and, studies have found, that men who see their children often, provide more child support. By themselves, with no coercion.)
I've really go no problem with the commentary in this thread, sure it varies widely from my own opinions in some cases, but most of it seems to be FREE THOUGHT and quite thoughtful as well.
Great Post, Adam! I find a lot of commonality here, I see you are a seeker of TRUTH. I am glad that you are old enough to run for POTUS, but young enough to maybe run more than once? The political process in this country tends to age the participants, it seems. Godspeed and I am now following, I thought I did last night on @fishyculture's post :D In Fact, you get the Full F.U.R.R. Treatment!
Follow
Up-vote
Re-Steem
Reply
!
F.U.R.R.
Very difficult topic.
My view:
Danger to mother: abortion ok.
Rape: abortion ok.
It is still problematic, but there is no other way.
All other cases: abortion is initiation of force.
Sex leads to pregnancy. The moment you engage in sex you know this is a possibility and accept it. This responsibility cannot be avoided by initiating force IMHO.
The day after pill can avoid much of the problem, in my opinion. I don't consider it as abortion, would like to know if others do, though.
Here here! I would disagree with "That doesn't mean it's always wrong." It is always wrong but, in some cases it's the lesser of two evils. I would that every baby's life was the priority since they didn't ask to be a part of this & most ladies did know what they were doing could lead to a new life so they hold the liability of protecting that innocent life. With all that being said...death to the state!!! Yes, get the "government" out of everything.
That's semantic disagreement then! Doesn't mean it's always the WRONG decision.
Ok, it's is mainly about how we would frame the statement, I guess. My contention is that murder is ALWAYS evil & abortion is always murder. So I still say it's a wrong decision but in very rare cases it's the least wrong of the options. So it sounds like we agree, making my original reply semantical. For me though an important distinction. On a saparate note, I am having a really hard time coming up with a scenerio where murdering an unborn baby is the lesser of two evils.
That was an awsome opening..."in five years"... L.O.L.