Zone1 The abortion debate - Understanding Both Sides

[JoeMoma]

Abortion is a very controversial topic which has been debated extensively on USMB. Usually the battle lines are drawn and the two sides are argued without one side giving any empathy (for lack of a better word) to the other. It quickly becomes a "I'm Right and Your Wrong" debate.

So I am attempting a different approach in this thread. I will state strengths and weaknesses to both sides of the issue. (Actually it might be a little nearsighted to say there are only two sides,but the two main sides are either pro-life and pro-choice.)

Okay, the main axiom where the battle lines are drawn is about when a person starts being a person, or better said, at what point should a person's life be protected by law.

The pro-life position is that an individual's life starts at conception, when the sperm and the egg unite and form a zygote. Biologically speaking, the is the first stage of an individuals life cycle. Many (not all) prochoice try to deny this fact. However, on the prochoice side, it is true that a zygote has no brain, has no heart, has no awareness of it's self...it doesn't know of it's own existence; and that begs the question "Does that single cell" have rights?" Does that single cell have the right to it's mother's body for 9 months? Those that are extreme pro-life side say "Yes" to both questions, and of course the pro-choice say "No". The extreme pro-choice side would say that the mother's rights trumps the rights of the preborn until birth and that a woman has the right to terminate "the clump of cells" in her body until right before it is born. Many, many people fall between the extreme pro-choice side and the extreme pro-life side. The Inbetweeners (I just made that word up) believe that abortion should be allowed under some conditions, and those conditions can very greatly.

My own position: Conceptually I am with the extreme pro-life. A human life begins at conception and that is the beginning of a "person" and that person should have the right to life. However, to be practical, I realize that this position would be a nightmare to enforce and does not have the political support to be legally in place. So from a practical position I am for women having access to the day after pill or the abortion pill which cause a miscarriage up to 10 weeks after sex (if I understand correctly). 10 weeks should be plenty of time, no pregnancy test needed, jut take a pill if unplanned sex happens.

Of course there should be exceptions when the mother's life is in danger.

That said, I don't necessary agree with those that don't hold my view on abortion, but I am trying to understand where they are coming from.

 

[Jaxson]

You die after you take your last breath just like you're born when you take your first one. Anything else is religious law, which isn't something we should be doing in the US.

 

[JoeMoma]

You die after you take your last breath just like you're born when you take your first one. Anything else is religious law, which isn't something we should be doing in the US.

Actually, many atheist are prolife. Fish are alive without ever breathing air.

In the spirit of trying to understand other people's positions, some say life of a person begin with a heartbeat and end when the heart stops beating.

 

[1srelluc]

I preferred the Mississippi Compromise myself. I thought that the 15 week "guardrail" was more than reasonable.

That said given the left's shabby reaction I can understand why those like myself that see the utility in abortion could be pushed toward the pro-life camp just out of spite.

 

[martybegan]

I preferred the Mississippi Compromise myself. I thought that the 15 week "guardrail" was more than reasonable.

That said given the left's shabby reaction I can understand why those like myself that see the utility in abortion could be pushed toward the pro-life camp just out of spite.

The 15 week thing seems like a good compromise, but the left refuses to compromise on just about everything.

Add in an exception for the life of the mother after, and it meets my moral requirements.

Honestly after 24 weeks or so doing a C-section to live deliver the baby is probably easier than aborting it.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Abortion is a very controversial topic which has been debated extensively on USMB. Usually the battle lines are drawn and the two sides are argued without one side giving any empathy (for lack of a better word) to the other. It quickly becomes a "I'm Right and Your Wrong" debate.

So I am attempting a different approach in this thread. I will state strengths and weaknesses to both sides of the issue. (Actually it might be a little nearsighted to say there are only two sides,but the two main sides are either pro-life and pro-choice.)

Okay, the main axiom where the battle lines are drawn is about when a person starts being a person, or better said, at what point should a person's life be protected by law.

The pro-life position is that an individual's life starts at conception, when the sperm and the egg unite and form a zygote. Biologically speaking, the is the first stage of an individuals life cycle. Many (not all) prochoice try to deny this fact. However, on the prochoice side, it is true that a zygote has no brain, has no heart, has no awareness of it's self...it doesn't know of it's own existence; and that begs the question "Does that single cell" have rights?" Does that single cell have the right to it's mother's body for 9 months? Those that are extreme pro-life side say "Yes" to both questions, and of course the pro-choice say "No". The extreme pro-choice side would say that the mother's rights trumps the rights of the preborn until birth and that a woman has the right to terminate "the clump of cells" in her body until right before it is born. Many, many people fall between the extreme pro-choice side and the extreme pro-life side. The Inbetweeners (I just made that word up) believe that abortion should be allowed under some conditions, and those conditions can very greatly.

My own position: Conceptually I am with the extreme pro-life. A human life begins at conception and that is the beginning of a "person" and that person should have the right to life. However, to be practical, I realize that this position would be a nightmare to enforce and does not have the political support to be legally in place. So from a practical position I am for women having access to the day after pill or the abortion pill which cause a miscarriage up to 10 weeks after sex (if I understand correctly). 10 weeks should be plenty of time, no pregnancy needed, jut take a pill if unplanned sex happens.

Of course there should be exceptions when the mother's life is in danger.

That said, I don't necessary agree with those that don't hold my view on abortion, but I am trying to understand where they are coming from.

In all honesty, I'm surprised the extreme pro-lifers aren't waging a war on masturbation.

I don't believe that life begins at conception. Is it the possibility for life? Certainly. But that's an ocean away from being a "life".

I abhor the very idea of abortion. I abhor it almost as much as I abhor the idea of a government playing an active role in a woman's pregnancy. I do not want the government telling a woman that she can't terminate a pregnancy which was the result of a sexual assault. I don't want the government telling a woman that she can't terminate a pregnancy when it's been determined that the fetus is profoundly malformed.

I do not believe that "late term abortions" should be permissible, and I believe that the majority of pro-choice folks believe as I do.

Unfortunately, as long as the extreme pro-life crowd refers to "pro-choice" as "pro abortion", there will be no progress in "understanding" anything. Despite my personal disgust with abortion, I'll still be referred to as a "baby killer" simply because I don't believe the government should dictate what does or does not happen. As long as that's going to happen, I have little interest in understanding anything from the extreme pro-life crowd...

 

[Circe]

That said, I don't necessary agree with those that don't hold my view on abortion, but I am trying to understand where they are coming from.

Do you want to know where we on the other side are "coming from," or do you want to change us? Any attempt at persuasion will answer that question and not in a good way.

I come from belief that the anti-abortion side, at least the predominantly male-dominated part of it (most women are pro-choice in this country) comes from a strong male desire to control all women. In the case of anti-abortionism it's a theoretical one because if the male is directly involved, often he wants to control the woman to HAVE an abortion so he doesn't have to pay child support! And men have forever been dominant in the far more common infanticide through the ages, I read in the book that analyzes this issue, Bare Branches.

This new take on anti-abortionism is another control-of-women effort, but not women these men know: sort of an all women all the time control effort, a fantasy of control. Naturally, most women deplore giving into this sort of control by men.

Another place I come from, metaphorically, is that the world is grossly overpopulated and the fewer people the better at this point.

Another place I come from is that most abortions are done to blacks, and that is well-known to be a major crime prevention. States that outlaw abortion and yet have blacks living there will have a big upsurge in crime starting in about 15 years, as the statistics show in that 15 years after Roe v. Wade crime plummeted because of the newly legalized abortions.

No persuasion, now.

 

[martybegan]

In all honesty, I'm surprised the extreme pro-lifers aren't waging a war on masturbation.

I don't believe that life begins at conception. Is it the possibility for life? Certainly. But that's an ocean away from being a "life".

I abhor the very idea of abortion. I abhor it almost as much as I abhor the idea of a government playing an active role in a woman's pregnancy. I do not want the government telling a woman that she can't terminate a pregnancy which was the result of a sexual assault. I don't want the government telling a woman that she can't terminate a pregnancy when it's been determined that the fetus is profoundly malformed.

I do not believe that "late term abortions" should be permissible, and I believe that the majority of pro-choice folks believe as I do.

Unfortunately, as long as the extreme pro-life crowd refers to "pro-choice" as "pro abortion", there will be no progress in "understanding" anything. Despite my personal disgust with abortion, I'll still be referred to as a "baby killer" simply because I don't believe the government should dictate what does or does not happen. As long as that's going to happen, I have little interest in understanding anything from the extreme pro-life crowd...

What about the "shout your abortion" extreme abortion rights crowd?

 

[TNHarley]

I understand both sides, honestly.
I am with Cannon. I think abortion is horrendous but i think the govt forcing gestation is worse. Losing bodily autonomy is tyranny.

 

[martybegan]

I understand both sides, honestly.
I am with Cannon. I think abortion is horrendous but i think the govt forcing gestation is worse. Losing bodily autonomy is tyranny.

Then you should be OK with the 15 week thing, as it splits the baby so to speak.

 

[1srelluc]

Do you want to know where we on the other side are "coming from," or do you want to change us? Any attempt at persuasion will answer that question and not in a good way.

I come from belief that the anti-abortion side, at least the predominantly male-dominated part of it (most women are pro-choice in this country) comes from a strong male desire to control all women. In the case of anti-abortionism it's a theoretical one because if the male is directly involved, often he wants to control the woman to HAVE an abortion so he doesn't have to pay child support! And men have forever been dominant in the far more common infanticide through the ages, I read in the book that analyzes this issue, Bare Branches.

This new take on anti-abortionism is another control-of-women effort, but not women these men know: sort of an all women all the time control effort, a fantasy of control. Naturally, most women deplore giving into this sort of control by men.

Another place I come from, metaphorically, is that the world is grossly overpopulated and the fewer people the better at this point.

Another place I come from is that most abortions are done to blacks, and that is well-known to be a major crime prevention. States that outlaw abortion and yet have blacks living there will have a big upsurge in crime starting in about 15 years, as the statistics show in that 15 years after Roe v. Wade crime plummeted because of the newly legalized abortions.

No persuasion, now.

Yep, I was born in 1955 and as of 2020 there is near 38% more people in the US now than when I was born....And you can damn sure tell it. That does not even count the estimated 15 million illegals and thanks to Tater that number has grown by a couple million.

I think we got a huge break with the 63 million that were aborted.....Better than 26% of which would be pushing out kids of their own right now.

Thing is not all that much has really changed. If you are a woman in a pro-life state abortions await, likely in the next state over or so. Get some leftist .org to drive you there.

 

[TNHarley]

Then you should be OK with the 15 week thing, as it splits the baby so to speak.

I dont really have room for compromise when it involves tyranny.
I was speaking with eagle1462010 the other day and thought late terms being a no-go was fair to both sides, though.
I dont consider myself either side though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abortion is a very controversial topic which has been debated extensively on USMB. Usually the battle lines are drawn and the two sides are argued without one side giving any empathy (for lack of a better word) to the other. It quickly becomes a "I'm Right and Your Wrong" debate.

So I am attempting a different approach in this thread. I will state strengths and weaknesses to both sides of the issue. (Actually it might be a little nearsighted to say there are only two sides,but the two main sides are either pro-life and pro-choice.)

Okay, the main axiom where the battle lines are drawn is about when a person starts being a person, or better said, at what point should a person's life be protected by law.

The pro-life position is that an individual's life starts at conception, when the sperm and the egg unite and form a zygote. Biologically speaking, the is the first stage of an individuals life cycle. Many (not all) prochoice try to deny this fact. However, on the prochoice side, it is true that a zygote has no brain, has no heart, has no awareness of it's self...it doesn't know of it's own existence; and that begs the question "Does that single cell" have rights?" Does that single cell have the right to it's mother's body for 9 months? Those that are extreme pro-life side say "Yes" to both questions, and of course the pro-choice say "No". The extreme pro-choice side would say that the mother's rights trumps the rights of the preborn until birth and that a woman has the right to terminate "the clump of cells" in her body until right before it is born. Many, many people fall between the extreme pro-choice side and the extreme pro-life side. The Inbetweeners (I just made that word up) believe that abortion should be allowed under some conditions, and those conditions can very greatly.

My own position: Conceptually I am with the extreme pro-life. A human life begins at conception and that is the beginning of a "person" and that person should have the right to life. However, to be practical, I realize that this position would be a nightmare to enforce and does not have the political support to be legally in place. So from a practical position I am for women having access to the day after pill or the abortion pill which cause a miscarriage up to 10 weeks after sex (if I understand correctly). 10 weeks should be plenty of time, no pregnancy test needed, jut take a pill if unplanned sex happens.

Of course there should be exceptions when the mother's life is in danger.

That said, I don't necessary agree with those that don't hold my view on abortion, but I am trying to understand where they are coming from.

I understand the gist of the political power of the opposition is that they believe they are saving fetuses that have souls and that they have joined together. And that this is mostly done in self interest, as they aim to punch their own, personal tickets to the Jesus forever festival.

I understand that originates from a place of "good" (self interest aside, as everyone operates in self interest). I would not attempt to impeach their morality.

 

[martybegan]

I dont really have room for compromise when it involves tyranny.
I was speaking with eagle1462010 the other day and thought late terms being a no-go was fair to both sides, though.
I dont consider myself either side though.

Then you don't really care about the fetus, just the mother.

It's OK if that's your position, just don't go around claiming you abhor abortion.

 

[TNHarley]

Then you don't really care about the fetus, just the mother.

It's OK if that's your position, just don't go around claiming you abhor abortion.

I do abhor it. I just abhor forced gestation more. Its tyranny of the highest order.

 

[martybegan]

I do abhor it. I just abhor forced gestation more. Its tyranny of the highest order.

Forced gestation?

With modern birth control there aren't many instances of "forced gestation"

Or are you saying all women aren't responsible enough to figure this out beforehand?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

With modern birth control there aren't many instances of "forced gestation"

Just some. Got it.

 

[TNHarley]

Forced gestation?

Yes, if a woman wants to end it, and the govt says no, that is forced gestation.

With modern birth control there aren't many instances of "forced gestation"

You need to ask some states why they are banning some birth control.

Or are you saying all women aren't responsible enough to figure this out beforehand?

I wasnt saying that but i wont argue with it. People are stupid.

 

[martybegan]

Just some. Got it.

If sex is voluntary, how is the gestation "forced"?

I can see in a rape case the gestation being forced, but in other cases, the gestation can be avoided by 1) avoiding sex or 2)taking steps to avoid conception.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, if a woman wants to end it, and the govt says no, that is forced gestation.

You need to ask some states why they are banning some birth control.

I wasnt saying that but i wont argue with it. People are stupid.

I wouldn't support birth control bans, and what birth control bans are being proposed?

Even idiots can figure out how to use a condom, or the pill, or go the old "map of Hawaii" pull out method.