Abortion and Women's Rights

[John V]

I've already answered that question. The answer is "no". Are you ready to drop this red herring now?

Why not? Why is human thought more valuable than other animal's thoughts? You make a big deal about aliens and AI, but if you find it morally acceptable to kill thinking animals, you could also kill thinking aliens or robots.

Ah, so you're pro-life but you won't be bombing any abortion clinics or otherwise taking matters into your own hands. That's good to know but insofar as our discussion on abortion is concerned, this is a distinction without a difference.

So having established that you are pro-life, you recognize that your beliefs about when life begins are completely arbitrary (see your repeated posts about how this is just your opinion) but if you could, your arbitrary whims would be forced on women to make choices for them.

Got it. Why so evasive?

Just the wording. Your description above is accurate.

Note that your beliefs about when life begins are also arbitrary, and so far you haven't denied that you support imposing your arbitrary whims on women to make choices for them. Please clarify - do you advocate that women should be prohibited from getting abortions at will past a certain point in pregnancy? If so, what do you think of the article I posted? Why are you comfortable with "I'm pro-choice but..."?

Pro-choice. I don't know of anyone in the pro-choice movement who thinks women should have 3rd trimester abortions on demand.

Interesting choice of trimesters, as your cutoff of 21 weeks is 2nd trimester. What do you think of 2nd trimester abortions?

And why doesn't anyone you know support a woman's right to choose in the 3rd trimester?

[The Valkyrie]

I've already answered that question. The answer is "no". Are you ready to drop this red herring now?

Why not? Why is human thought more valuable than other animal's thoughts? You make a big deal about aliens and AI, but if you find it morally acceptable to kill thinking animals, you could also kill thinking aliens or robots.

Ah, so you're pro-life but you won't be bombing any abortion clinics or otherwise taking matters into your own hands. That's good to know but insofar as our discussion on abortion is concerned, this is a distinction without a difference.

So having established that you are pro-life, you recognize that your beliefs about when life begins are completely arbitrary (see your repeated posts about how this is just your opinion) but if you could, your arbitrary whims would be forced on women to make choices for them.

Got it. Why so evasive?

Just the wording. Your description above is accurate.

Note that your beliefs about when life begins are also arbitrary, and so far you haven't denied that you support imposing your arbitrary whims on women to make choices for them. Please clarify - do you advocate that women should be prohibited from getting abortions at will past a certain point in pregnancy? If so, what do you think of the article I posted? Why are you comfortable with "I'm pro-choice but..."?

Pro-choice. I don't know of anyone in the pro-choice movement who thinks women should have 3rd trimester abortions on demand.

Interesting choice of trimesters, as your cutoff of 21 weeks is 2nd trimester. What do you think of 2nd trimester abortions?

And why doesn't anyone you know support a woman's right to choose in the 3rd trimester?

The magical word: "Viability"

[RobbyPants]

And why doesn't anyone you know support a woman's right to choose in the 3rd trimester?

And what about 22nd trimester abortions? What about those?

[John V]

The magical word: "Viability"

That's fine if you've arbitrarily chosen viability as a cutoff point, but DP chose thought.

[DeistPaladin]

Why not? Why is human thought more valuable than other animal's thoughts? You make a big deal about aliens and AI, but if you find it morally acceptable to kill thinking animals, you could also kill thinking aliens or robots.

I've already explained all of this to you. Are we adding Argumentum Ad Neuseum to Red Herring evasion?

Just the wording. Your description above is accurate.

Good. Now you can answer why you think you have the authority to make decisions for women and deny them their right of choice when you can't justify the lines you've drawn.

Note that your beliefs about when life begins are also arbitrary,

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

Beyond the fact that this isn't true, I provided a lengthy and thoughtful description of why self-awareness is a clear line for me, I'm not the one who seeks to deny women the right of choice.

Please clarify - do you advocate that women should be prohibited from getting abortions at will past a certain point in pregnancy? If so, what do you think of the article I posted?

Can you name for me any women who WANT to get an abortion after week 21?

Can you name for me any "pro-choice" advocates who think late term (3rd trimester) abortions should be on demand?

You might be able to. I'm just curious.

Why are you comfortable with "I'm pro-choice but..."?

I've also answered that question as well. Person A's right to life trumping Person B's right to choice, except where Person B's life is also in danger. Person A doesn't exist prior to the brain development that occurs after week 21.

Shall I keep that answer on my clipboard just in case you need me to paste it a few more times?

Now, if you're done with the red herring and tu quoque evasion tactics, let's hear why you think you're justified in forcing your personal opinions on others.

I'll wait...

[Rampant.A.I.]

OK, so we're 18 pages into this thread and no closer to understanding your position on abortion. This shouldn't be an essay question. Are you pro-choice or not?

Pot-kettle and such. I received essays in response to the simple yes/no question, Are people who eat meat accessories to murder?

I am not pro-choice by most people's understanding of the term. I necessarily let women decide for themselves as that's been the law of the land for decades.

[Losty]

I will name myself, I have no problem with the 24 week limit that many states in the US have. One percent of abortions are after 20 weeks. 1 percent. That is including medically necessary and not medically necesarry abortions. I don't care when 'life' begins or about thought. When life begins is not relevant just becoming a person isn't good enough. Yes people have a right to live, but not at the expense of others.

A person with kidney failure has a right to live , but that person's right to live ends at their need to use someone else's body to survive. This is why people cannot be forced to allow the use of their kidney to save someone with liver failure.

A person who is bleeding to death has a right to live, but their right ends at their need to use someone else's body to survive. This is why even if there is no blood available the people around cannot be forced to allow the use of their blood so save the person.

A fetus in my opinion is not a person until whenever that debatable moment when it becomes conscious of itself. But that's just my opinion on what constitutes a person, for all that's worth. So for the sake of argument let us say that life begins at conception. A fetus is a person from the second that sperm penetrates that egg. A fetus is certainly no more special than other people. So, a fetus has a right to live, but its right ends at its need to use someone else's body to survive. We have established precedent that a person cannot legally be forced to allow the use of their body to save another person. So, you see, person or not is irrelevant. Even a person does not have the right to use another persons body without permission as means to their own survival.

[DeistPaladin]

A fetus in my opinion is not a person until whenever that debatable moment when it becomes conscious of itself. But that's just my opinion on what constitutes a person, for all that's worth. So for the sake of argument let us say that life begins at conception. A fetus is a person from the second that sperm penetrates that egg. A fetus is certainly no more special than other people. So, a fetus has a right to live, but its right ends at its need to use someone else's body to survive. We have established precedent that a person cannot legally be forced to allow the use of their body to save another person. So, you see, person or not is irrelevant. Even a person does not have the right to use another persons body without permission as means to their own survival.

You've given me a good and thoughtful counter argument, advocating viability instead of self-awareness as the standard for when "life", in the moral sense of the word, begins. Fortunately, these two milestones overlap, so the controversy is minimized as academic.

Some would argue that my timeline is too conservative, that the kind of brain development necessary for self-awareness isn't until later. I just use it being as conservative as possible when I debate the so-called "pro-lifer" crowd.

[Losty]

Some would argue that my timeline is too conservative, that the kind of brain development necessary for self-awareness isn't until later. I just use it being as conservative as possible when I debate the so-called "pro-lifer" crowd.

I just don't think the cut off date is super important. Pro-lifers use late term abortion as a debate topic because it's so much easier to play on someone's emotions when the fetus in question is cute and looks almost like an actual baby.
The truth is that something like .8% of abortions are voluntary after 20 weeks. Also I'll have to look up a link for proofs, but I believe a majority of those .8% claim they waited so long bc they had to save money so affordable abortion could eliminate some of those.

[DeistPaladin]

The truth is that something like .8% of abortions are voluntary after 20 weeks. Also I'll have to look up a link for proofs, but I believe a majority of those .8% claim they waited so long bc they had to save money so affordable abortion could eliminate some of those.

Cutting funding for Planned Parenthood certainly doesn't help.