Do You Think It's Alright To Have An Abortion If Your Child Is Diagnosed Ill In Utero

[Nique]

Being vague does not a generalization make.

Hey! I'm not on trial here. See me up here? On my argument pedestal, insulting everyone else?

It does. They're two entirely separate arguments. One is about whether or not abortion is okay. The other is that Tactics generalizations are biased and inaccurate.

Then your arguments for abortion rights are only incidental? I mean if you aren't invested in the topic itself than to what end are you pointing out flaws in his arguments?

It isn't. It really, really isn't.

Then, again, I don't think you're going to be able to get to the crux of the issue.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by NonCon

2. I can't get into the moral without getting into religion.
2a. I don't want to get into religion.
2b. It's against the rules to get into religion.
2c. Really, really, really don't want to get into religion.

First, let me preface by saying I agree with you on the topic at hand. Now let me note that this is a cop out, since valuing human life--which is where the moral quandary lies--is in no way purely within the jurisdiction of religion. No one's brought up making abortions making Baby Jesus cry so far and I'm confident no one will.

So it's totally cool to make a case on the moral argument over, say, which life to value more: the mother or the child? That's really the root of the issue, after all, as both concerns are perfectly valid.

And I have faith in all of you to keep it cool and collected for me, naturally.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Nique

Hey! I'm not on trial here. See me up here? On my argument pedestal, insulting everyone else?

Yes. Knock it off.

Originally Posted by POS

So it's totally cool to make a case on the moral argument over, say, which life to value more: the mother or the child? That's really the root of the issue, after all, as both concerns are perfectly valid.

The problem is that much of the argument in favor of valuing the child's life as much or more than the mother's is based in religious thinking, so I'm really not sure that I could explain why I disagree without getting a bit into religious debate.

[BitVyper]

So it's totally cool to make a case on the moral argument over, say, which life to value more: the mother or the child? That's really the root of the issue

Depends on if you consider the embryo (occasionally very undeveloped fetus, and like 1 or 2% of the time a more developed fetus) a child or not, which pretty much DOES come down to secular vs non-secular responses. Since the subject of the thread is mainly related to Down Syndrome, which CAN be detected at very early stages of pregnancy, that does come into it.

[Premmy]

My view, when upheld, causes a woman to do something unsafe? That... that doesn't even begin to make sense. I cannot force a woman to act in a particular way.

If you enforce your opinion of "don't do thingx" you're preventing someone from doing it, and thereby, forcing someone to do "not thingx". Pretty simple.

She can choose to do so or not, but it's her choice.

It's her choice as much as it's my choice not to murder a thousand people. Sure, I can always choose to kill anyone, and if I'm determined enough, I'll find a way, but it's illegal and there are quite a few signifigant hurdles to that. Making abortion illegal is exactly like making anything else illegal, it forces the vast majority of people into not getting abortions, or, doing it illegally, and therefore, dangerously.

Based off of your words, because I believe something is wrong, I cause someone to commit an act I don't like dangerously?

You forgot the whole, "enforce" part of it.

Does that extend to other elements of life too? Perhaps I don't like people to commit suicide. If someone asks, I'll explain this. That, of course, means that people will have to go and perform it in ways that aren't comfortable now, because it's illegal, and difficult to get people to help them with it.

Edit: You also know that Suicide is illegal in many places, and Euthanasia as well, right?


I always feel like people who are "against abortion but are also against doing anything about it" need to detail this a whole damn lot before saying anything, first, they need to say it to themselves to get some perspective

Originally Posted by anti abortion guy who doesn't want to actually stop people from aborting

I believe, that even though I don't like something, my way of thinking should have no real signifigance to the world in any way whatsoever, because that's just and fair. Any thing I say about it is done purely for the sake of wanting to say it.

Now before continuing, they, the "I'm against this but I don't feel it's right to do anything" person should consider these things:

1: There are people actively preventing others from doing the thing you dislike but don't want to do anything about, who share the first half of your opinions
2: These people have the authority to enforce their opinions.
3:They also have the audience to espouse their opinions and garner support for their actions, which you, presumably are against.
4: If you believe that what you think should not be acted on, the only thing you are doing by saying it is giving support to these people.

Again, free country, say and feel whatever damn thing you want, but think about the context of what you are saying.

The problem with that statement Mes, is that the woman who desires it is the one who's desperate for it.

And if she's desperate and CAN'T? because people who don't want her to can make her NOT ABLE TO? If you're desperate to do something, and you can, easily, safely, and with the proper information concerning how to go about it and the pros and cons of it, you'll make proper decisions.

But also, what about those women (one of which I know) who didn't want a baby, got pregnant anyway, wanted to keep it, but because abortion is legal, the father of the child (from her point of view) "forced" her to get it "taken care of", as he couldn't pay child support

Freedom to do something is nothing at all like Inability to do something. That's pretty much the exact opposite.

We let people own guns. Guns exist to kill. people kill other people with guns.
We let people drive cars, cars aren't made to kill, but do so easily and frequently.

She now regrets that decision horribly. You say that my position (when enforced legally) can be the cause of pain, but so can any position. When it's an option at all bad things can arise that cause people life-time trauma and pain.

When it's not an option it will most assuredly do the same if not worse, as opposed to when it is an OPTION that people can realistically CHOOSE, where the possibility exists, like car accidents.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

Depends on if you consider the embryo (occasionally very undeveloped fetus, and like 1 or 2% of the time a more developed fetus) a child or not, which pretty much DOES come down to secular vs non-secular responses.

Naw.

Just informed versus ill-informed ones.

[Nique]

Yes. Knock it off.

I'm fairly surprised that I could be bothering you this much but, ok. I'm really not trying to piss you off, your arguments just seemed kinda *off* which I guess we'll just go ahead and attribute to me misreading your intent and call it a night.

[Fifthfiend]

Nobody actually believes that a fetus is a human being and that aborting it is killing because nobody is actually willing to follow through on the necessary consequences of that belief and if they did they'd be obviously monstrous, morally reprehensible human beings, because they'd be advocating for lengthy prison sentences for mothers and the arrest and criminal investigation of mothers who miscarry. Everyone else is just appropriating the rhetoric of murder because it makes them feel better about judging the fuck out of people for things that aren't any of their business and that they don't know a damn thing about.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by tacticslion

Yay, this is exactly what I didn't say! (non-Edit, Nique's right)
First, let me reiterate: I've got friends who've had an abortion. I don't preach at them about the evils of it. That makes it kind of hard for me to "force" my beliefs on them, since, you know, they're aware of what I feel, if they ask, but I don't approach it if they don't, as it's a sensitive topic.
Second: this thread? Asked what we think. I gave what I thought, but admittedly went too far.
Third: I'd rather my wife live. Seriously, I would. I'd pay virtually any cost. That doesn't mean that it'd be the right decision.
Finally: My view, when upheld, causes a woman to do something unsafe? That... that doesn't even begin to make sense. I cannot force a woman to act in a particular way. She can choose to do so or not, but it's her choice. Based off of your words, because I believe something is wrong, I cause someone to commit an act I don't like dangerously? Does that extend to other elements of life too? Perhaps I don't like people to commit suicide. If someone asks, I'll explain this. That, of course, means that people will have to go and perform it in ways that aren't comfortable now, because it's illegal, and difficult to get people to help them with it. The problem with that statement Mes, is that the woman who desires it is the one who's desperate for it. But also, what about those women (one of which I know) who didn't want a baby, got pregnant anyway, wanted to keep it, but because abortion is legal, the father of the child (from her point of view) "forced" her to get it "taken care of", as he couldn't pay child support. She now regrets that decision horribly. You say that my position (when enforced legally) can be the cause of pain, but so can any position. When it's an option at all bad things can arise that cause people life-time trauma and pain.

No, you brought up every pointless soundbite from the anti-abortion argument from the woodwork -- stuff like "Oh but there's adoption!" and backhandedly calling it "Killing a person," -- your every post in this thread has been undermining any position opposite of yours with falsely placed sentimentality. You do nothing to address actual points like this little gem--

You believe I'm against the safety of women? That's what your words indicate - that my stance is "so unambiguously against the safety and freedom of women". Welp. I suppose I should make sure to stick my wife back in her burqua, and make sure I've got a good leather belt in case she doesn't cook me dinner. Also, she'd better squeeze out a few more kids, or else! Oh, and don't let them vote... that'd be bad! Really, is this what you see when I talk?

Look at this ridiculous strawman. You do your absolute best to go on a completely different tangent from what I stated to completely undermine what I said and make yourself come off as an optimistic hero because you have a wife who agrees with you. I don't care about your wife, that means nothing in the context of the discussion and you constantly bringing her up as a talking point is dismissive at best. The thinly-veiled anti-muslin statement was fucking classic, too.

I never said a damn thing about other women's rights issues. My statement was entirely within the context of the abortion argument and you do your damndest to take it as far away from that as possible.


Now that that awful tangent is out of the way, let me address your statement about a father "forcing" a mother to get an abortion -- some people are horrible. Some husbands are horrible. If he truly FORCED her to get an abortion, I doubt the legality of it was anything more than an way to convince her. We cannot stop beings from being horrible sometimes, but that doesn't take away from the terrible harm caused to women by outlawing it. You force many to die through giving birth, or many to harm themselves by doing riskier abortions. It doesn't matter that you disagree with the choice to get an abortion, that's not an issue and never was.

You bring up every anti-abortion argument and anecdote (I like how you said nique was right then used another anecdote) I can possibly wrap my head around to denounce it as something bad, but that's not an issue. I support abortion not because I think the act is a good thing or a good idea, but because it is an option that women should have legally available to them for safety reasons and to avoid the cliche'd "back alley" abortions.

You obviously disagree, because you bring up contrived and rare situations where it's possible that abortion being legal is a bad thing. It's pretty damn easy to extrapolate that you don't want legal abortion for things like this. There is an insidious undertone to your posts that you then say you didn't mean -- then you go on to repeat the exact same thing while pretending to be the saint.

The freedom of a woman is important, of course it is, but what about the freedom of the child? Yes, I get it, the ideas of the "sliding scale", the "baby isn't sentient yet", etc. The problem comes, again, religiously, and, if I follow this up, will be way off topic, that of the soul. It's a point we can't get into without eventually going off on "you superstitious nuts hate all science!" territory, so really, as indicated before, we're at an impasse.

That's not the issue at all. You will not stop abortions. Abortions have been around forever and they will continue to be around until the world goes Orwellian.

You care only for the potential child's position, and I am incredibly sympathetic to that for personal reasons, but I am going to restate that my distaste in the act of abortion itself means nothing. It's trivial to think that my opinion of an act should influence another woman's life either for or against abortion because I am not her.

Also, I know that life doesn't always get better. It's life, it goes up and down, and sometimes it really sucks. My stance, though, is take the time to wait and see and do the best you can. The difference is, I guess, I've got hope that it will and, even if not in this life, the life to come, which I believe in. Because I believe in the afterlife, I have an obligation in this one to a behavior. Goody for me.

Aaah, we get it, you're religious. Stop bringing it up. It doesn't matter in the discussion and the only other purpose is to flaunt that you are.



EDIT -- You know I was just gonna leave this point out of this because I think I've probably been over aggressive with my post already, but I just can't standby and watch something so unwaveringly odd and contradictory be here:

Originally Posted by tacticslion

First, let me reiterate: I've got friends who've had an abortion. I don't preach at them about the evils of it. That makes it kind of hard for me to "force" my beliefs on them, since, you know, they're aware of what I feel, if they ask, but I don't approach it if they don't, as it's a sensitive topic.

Originally Posted by tacticslion

Both my wife and I find the idea of abortion reprehensible in general. Killing a living person usually for the sake of personal convenience: this is what most abortions are.

You equate abortion with killing. There is no ambiguity in your first post and pretending otherwise will further discredit you. You used "But I have friends who've had abortions!" anecdote the same way racists go "I have friends who are black," -- pretending that being "friends" with someone further credits your position against those people in the first place. You call it killing, yet you are open about having friends, multiple people, who you, by your own damn logic, consider killers. I do not know how you rationalize this, only that it is a completely backwards stance that you preach and live.

Basically I'm just waiting for how you spin "Killing a living person" into "not being murder actually!" because I'm sure it'll be grand.

[Raiden]

Personally, I'm in the camp that I don't like abortion. Of course, by saying I don't like abortion I put it in the same position of "I don't like putting down a dog because it doesn't have a home". I may not like it, but it doesn't make it any less necessary sometimes.

My whole belief just kind of came from a whole young adulthood of being told that if I'm willing to have sex, I damn well better be willing to raise what happens. And a lot of the time, excluding circumstances such as rape, the whole situation could have been avoided simply by not having sex if you weren't ready. But having been in certain situations, I realize that's not always the case. The heat of the moment, etc. I've been guilty of it myself, though I did create a small back-up plan in case the emergency ever came up.

As for this specific situation, I'd honestly leave it up to the mother. It's not an easy choice, and they're going to be handling consequences regardless of the outcome. I know a friend of mine still cries every year on the day the child would have been born and doesn't trust herself at all to be a mother. It's not an easy decision and not one done lightly. So while I personally detest abortion, and in an event that the child had been healthy and little risk to the mother I'd advocate giving birth, in this situation it's not my call to make.