Zone1 The abortion debate - Understanding Both Sides

[Red Front]

That begs the question, what exactly makes a human being a human being?

Human beings determine that. Society. Is it consciousness, it is birth and consciousness, is it taking its first breath, is it..? People decide these things. I don't feel it's reasonable to reduce a human being to a zygote or embryo. I consider the woman the human being and her interests and well-being take precedence over the well-being of a zygote or embryo. If conservatives were more helpful toward single mothers, we would have fewer abortions. Reducing poverty is the best way to significantly reduce abortion.

 

[Couchpotato]

I and many others don't consider a zygote or embryo, a human being or person with a will or interests that would justify forcing a woman to remain pregnant. I see it as a potential human being or person provided it remains attached to an actual human being, namely the woman. I don't see a human being who is an infant or a two-year-old toddler, as an adult. Potentially that infant or toddler can become an adult, but in actuality, that infant and toddler is not an adult. If the infant or toddler dies, it wasn't an adult that died. If a zygote or embryo dies, it wasn't a human being that died but rather a potential human being. Saying that a zygote or embryo is human and alive, doesn't make it a human being. The woman is the actual human being, not the zygote or embryo attached to her uterus.

I don't like abortion, but if conservatives are going to be so adamant and indignant, about saving human life in women's wombs, why don't they demonstrate the same level of concern for human life outside of the womb? I keep stating the fact that these so-called "pro-lifers" often defund social programs that help single mothers raise their children. They even defund school lunch programs for poor children. I find it hypocritical. These same conservatives are also griping about government mask mandates in the middle of a nationwide deadly pandemic, arguing that the government doesn't have the right to force a mask on anyone's body, yet they want the government to enforce laws that force women to remain pregnant. I find these holy-rollers quite inconsistent with who and how they "love".

Thanks for your input.

So if a zygote/embryo isnt a human then what is it? And when does the magic happen that changes if from whatever it was before into a human? Zygote, embryo, baby, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, adult, etc are just stages in a human's lifecycle arent they? If we are going to have a discussion about what abortion is we should at least be honest about it shouldnt we? Fooling ourselves about what is inside a woman when she's pregnant is helpful IMO.

 

[Couchpotato]

Human beings determine that. Society. Is it consciousness, it is birth and consciousness, is it taking its first breath, is it..? People decide these things. I don't feel it's reasonable to reduce a human being to a zygote or embryo. I consider the woman the human being and her interests and well-being take precedence over the well-being of a zygote or embryo. If conservatives were more helpful toward single mothers, we would have fewer abortions. Reducing poverty is the best way to significantly reduce abortion.

Correct. We as a society determine what is a life and when that life has value. We've been doing that shit since time started. It wasnt so long ago that we placed little to no value on people who were the wrong skin color. Was society right? You are placing the wants/desires of the woman over the life of the baby.

 

[Couchpotato]

That begs the question, what exactly makes a human being a human being?

I would say conception though I know you may disagree. My contention is that it's just a part of the lifecycle of the human being. It never turns out to be a giraffe or some other species does it? There's no way to make that "clump of cells" turn into anything but a grown human other than killing it. So when does it become "human" to you?

 

[JoeMoma]

I would say conception though I know you may disagree. My contention is that it's just a part of the lifecycle of the human being. It never turns out to be a giraffe or some other species does it? There's no way to make that "clump of cells" turn into anything but a grown human other than killing it. So when does it become "human" to you?

Conception. This is something you and I agree on. But if you read this thread you will find those all over the place on the answer to this question. I guess that should be expected in the day and age when many have difficulty even defining what a woman is.

It would seem that the new definition of "Woman" has become, anyone who identifies as a woman. So perhaps a human being is anyone who identifies as a human being.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Human beings determine that. Society. Is it consciousness, it is birth and consciousness, is it taking its first breath, is it..? People decide these things.

And no two people have the exact same answer.

But what we can do is step back and see a clear difference in how we treat a fetus vs. an 8 month stillbirth.

Ever been to a funeral for a 12 week fetus? Nope, and neither has anyone else.

There is no clear line that makes itself apparent. But we have to draw one anyway. Just as we have to draw lines delineating when a person becomes an adult, or is mature enough to drink alcohol. Nobody actually thinks a person who is 18 years old is suddenly more mature than one who is 17 years, 364 days old. But we have to draw the line anyway.

 

[Red Front]

Correct. We as a society determine what is a life and when that life has value. We've been doing that shit since time started. It wasnt so long ago that we placed little to no value on people who were the wrong skin color. Was society right? You are placing the wants/desires of the woman over the life of the baby.

I'm placing the interests and needs of an actual human being (the woman) over a zygote or embryo that's attached to her uterus (her body, her life). You believe a zygote or embryo is a human being or baby, I don't. It's a potential baby, but not a baby when it's a zygote or embryo, any more than a zygote is a fetus, or a baby is a teen or an adult. There's a distinction between a zygote or embryo and a human being and person.

If she loses her job or health as a result of the pregnancy, are you going to support her? She's the one who is pregnant and has to pay the price of being pregnant. Who are you to impose pregnancy on a woman (an actual human being)? You're completely indifferent to the needs and interests of the woman. It's her pregnancy, not yours or mine. Essentially what you're saying is that she doesn't have sovereignty over her body or reproductive system. If a zygote or embryo is attached to her uterus, she must bear the cost and many hazards of pregnancy, for nine months. Says who? You? You're most likely a Republican who votes for Republican politicians that defund government programs that provide assistance to single mothers. Helping them raise their children. Programs for food, housing, job training, daycare, school lunches, school supplies, clothing for the children..etc. You defund all of that, and your Pentecostal Church doesn't meet those needs. Actually, your pastor drives around in a new $90,000 BMW and wears a $10.000 Rolex, and Armani suits, compliments of the congregation. He thinks people are poor because they don't have enough faith. You holy-rollers condemn these women yet you have no moral high ground. Before you worry about life in other people's wombs, worry about life outside of the womb.

 

[Red Front]

And no two people have the exact same answer.

But what we can do is step back and see a clear difference in how we treat a fetus vs. an 8 month stillbirth.

Ever been to a funeral for a 12 week fetus? Nope, and neither has anyone else.

There is no clear line that makes itself apparent. But we have to draw one anyway. Just as we have to draw lines delineating when a person becomes an adult, or is mature enough to drink alcohol. Nobody actually thinks a person who is 18 years old is suddenly more mature than one who is 17 years, 364 days old. But we have to draw the line anyway.

You draw the line at conception, I don't. I believe the woman's needs and interests take precedence over the life of a zygote or embryo that's attached to her body.

 

[Couchpotato]

I'm placing the interests and needs of an actual human being (the woman) over a zygote or embryo that's attached to her uterus (her body, her life). You believe a zygote or embryo is a human being or baby, I don't. It's a potential baby, but not a baby when it's a zygote or embryo, any more than a zygote is a fetus, or a baby is a teen or an adult. There's a distinction between a zygote or embryo and a human being and person.

Wants not needs. The woman wants to not be pregnant not needs to not be pregnant.

If she loses her job or health as a result of the pregnancy, are you going to support her? She's the one who is pregnant and has to pay the price of being pregnant. Who are you to impose pregnancy on a woman (an actual human being)? You're completely indifferent to the needs and interests of the woman. It's her pregnancy, not yours or mine. Essentially what you're saying is that she doesn't have sovereignty over her body or reproductive system. If a zygote or embryo is attached to her uterus, she must bear the cost and many hazards of pregnancy, for nine months. Says who? You? You're most likely a Republican that votes for Republican politicians that defund government programs that provide assistance to single mothers. Helping them raise their children. Programs for food, housing, job training, daycare, school lunches, school supplies, clothing for the children..etc. You defund all of that, and your Pentecostal Church doesn't meet those needs. Actually, your pastor drives around in a new $90,000 BMW and wears a $10.000 Rolex, and Armani suits, compliments of the congregation. He thinks people are poor because they don't have enough faith. You holy-rollers condemn these women yet you have no moral high ground.

Why am I suddenly responsible for the care and feeding of this person? Because I don't think you should get murder an individual because their existence is inconvenient for you? You have sovereignty over your body and reproductive system right up until you actually reproduce. Then your choices narrow because your choices are affecting more than just you. Yeah you have to bear the costs of reproducing. That's how it works. If a man gets a woman pregnant does he legally get to just say fuck off Im not paying for that? Of course not. He's legally responsible to support that child until it's an adult and responsible for itself. Im sorry if that's inconvenient or messes with your summer plans. It's not a mystery how people get pregnant, and there are myriad ways to prevent it from happening. The birth control pill is over 99% effective it taken as proscribed. Condoms are 97% effective it used correctly. If you are a woman on birth control pills only having sex with men who use condoms what are the actual chances of you getting pregnant? 1 out of 100 times you have sex on the pill you can get pregnant, then only 3 out of 100 times the pill fails would the condom fail, and those failures would have to coincide as well as happen inside the 6-7 day window that a woman is actually able to get pregnant during her cycle. If you get pregnant by accident you're not trying to not get pregnant.

 

[Couchpotato]

You draw the line at conception, I don't. I believe the woman's needs and interests take precedence over the life of a zygote or embryo that's attached to her body.

Wants Quit calling them needs. They are wants.

 

[Red Front]

Wants Quit calling them needs. They are wants.

No, they don't necessarily just want. The problem is your self-righteous indifference and disregard for women who are pregnant. You don't know what a woman's situation is? Financial, family, health, you have no idea.

 

[Couchpotato]

No, they don't necessarily just want. The problem is your self-righteous indifference and disregard for women who are pregnant. You don't know what a woman's situation is? Financial, family, health, you have no idea.

Under what situation would a woman NEED to have an abortion? You wanting to not change your life plan doesn't constitute a need that's a want.

It has nothing to do with being self righteous. You dont get to murder another person because their existence is inconvenient. Sorry that's just kind of a hard and fast rule for me.

 

[Red Front]

Wants not needs. The woman wants to not be pregnant not needs to not be pregnant.



Why am I suddenly responsible for the care and feeding of this person? Because I don't think you should get murder an individual because their existence is inconvenient for you? You have sovereignty over your body and reproductive system right up until you actually reproduce. Then your choices narrow because your choices are affecting more than just you. Yeah you have to bear the costs of reproducing. That's how it works. If a man gets a woman pregnant does he legally get to just say fuck off Im not paying for that? Of course not. He's legally responsible to support that child until it's an adult and responsible for itself. Im sorry if that's inconvenient or messes with your summer plans. It's not a mystery how people get pregnant, and there are myriad ways to prevent it from happening. The birth control pill is over 99% effective it taken as proscribed. Condoms are 97% effective it used correctly. If you are a woman on birth control pills only having sex with men who use condoms what are the actual chances of you getting pregnant? 1 out of 100 times you have sex on the pill you can get pregnant, then only 3 out of 100 times the pill fails would the condom fail, and those failures would have to coincide as well as happen inside the 6-7 day window that a woman is actually able to get pregnant during her cycle. If you get pregnant by accident you're not trying to not get pregnant.

In an ideal, perfect world women would only get pregnant when they're ready to be mothers. We don't live in that world, unfortunately. You have no problem if this same woman you claim must allow a zygote or embryo to develop at her expense, ends up unemployed and homeless due to her pregnancy. You claim to care so much about the life conceived in a stranger's womb, but apparently don't give a rats about that stranger's situation or struggles. If she ends up unemployed and homeless, big deal, you don't care, yet you supposedly, genuinely care about the zygote or embryo in her womb? She ends up in a homeless shelter with her baby, where are you, the person that feels they have the authority to impose pregnancy upon strangers because supposedly you're "so so concerned" for the life in their wombs? Forcing her to remain pregnant, when she's not ready to be a mother. If you're not willing to support the community infrastructure to assist single mothers in raising their children, then you have no right to force anyone to go through nine months of pregnancy and give birth to babies.

 

[Red Front]

Under what situation would a woman NEED to have an abortion? You wanting to not change your life plan doesn't constitute a need that's a want.

It has nothing to do with being self righteous. You dont get to murder another person because their existence is inconvenient. Sorry that's just kind of a hard and fast rule for me.

It's your personal opinion that a zygote or embryo is a human person, not a fact. It's not a question of her arbitrarily wanting something, but rather her having needs that you pretend she can't have.

 

[Couchpotato]

It's your personal opinion that a zygote or embryo is a human person, not a fact. It's not a question of her arbitrarily wanting something, but rather her having needs that you pretend she can't have.

For sure. So when does the magic conversion from some other species to human happen? How many weeks?

 

[Couchpotato]

In an ideal, perfect world women would only get pregnant when they're ready to be mothers. We don't live in that world, unfortunately. You have no problem if this same woman you claim must allow a zygote or embryo to develop at her expense, ends up unemployed and homeless due to her pregnancy. You claim to care so much about the life conceived in a stranger's womb, but apparently don't give a rats about that stranger's situation or struggles. If she ends up unemployed and homeless, big deal, you don't care, yet you supposedly, genuinely care about the zygote or embryo in her womb? She ends up in a homeless shelter with her baby, where are you, the person that feels they have the authority to impose pregnancy upon strangers because supposedly you're "so so concerned" for the life in their wombs? Forcing her to remain pregnant, when she's not ready to be a mother. If you're not willing to support the community infrastructure to assist single mothers in raising their children, then you have no right to force anyone to go through nine months of pregnancy and give birth to babies.

Im sorry but if you get pregnant in today's world you arent trying to not get pregnant. Take your free birth control pills and require the person you're having sex with to use the free condoms available, and if you're not willing to do that or forget to take your pill and bring your condoms dont have sex. It's really that simple. But I get it you want to have sex, so you get to and you shouldnt have to be held accountable for that decision. So you get to punish the only innocent entity in this transaction by killing it. Congrats.

 

[JoeMoma]

As I see it, the abortion issue hinges on at least two opposing things. 1) The right to life of the pre-born and 2) The right of the women to be sovereign over her own body. As demonstrated in this thread, there is not a consensus on these things. Now that Roe vs. Wade has been overturned, each state gets to decide where it stands on this.

That being said, I think most people do agree that there should be some restrictions on abortion, like no partial birth abortions for example. The individual states will get to draw their own lines where those restrictions will be.
Or should congress step in and pass a federal law, and if they do, will it hold up in court?

 

[Red Front]

For sure. So when does the magic conversion from some other species to human happen? How many weeks?

How does an infant magically become an adult? If something or someone possesses certain attributes and properties then it's reasonable to identify that thing or person with whatever those qualities are determined to define. If society determines that to be an adult one must be 18 years old, then we should be at least that age and if there are other qualifying qualities, we must meet those qualifications to be considered adults. Who determines in our society when one is an adult? Society, the community, determines through its values and culture, what something is and isn't. We define and label things as individuals and as a community, in order to facilitate constructive interaction and relationships in the world that contribute to our survival and wellbeing.

So when does a zygote become an embryo and when does an embryo become a fetus and when does a fetus in the womb become a human being or baby in the womb? That's up to people to decide (i.e. society). I'm not for women willy-nilly getting an abortion eight months gestation, that's wrong, if not outright murder. If what is in her stomach is viable, healthy, and able to live outside of the womb with a little help from society, then I see it as immoral, if not a crime for a woman to kill an eight-month fetus. We still call it a fetus, even when it's been eight months in the womb, but that's in my opinion and in the opinion of most health professionals, a pre-natal human being with a brain, most likely with a degree of consciousness and the ability to experience pain. So I would be against such abortions. Why didn't she get an abortion earlier, why now eight months into gestation? Just because she feels like it? No, I'm against those types of abortions. 93% of all abortions occur before 15 weeks. The remaining abortions occur due to medical reasons, with the exception of 1% of late-term abortions. So-called "willy-nilly" late-term abortions are practically unheard of. It occurs, but it's extremely rare.

So when do we determine that a fetus is a pre-natal human being (a.k.a. baby)? That's up to society to decide. I believe viability is part of it, the ability of what is in the womb to survive outside of it, without the woman. I also would add a brain and a few other properties with that, including the amount of time in the womb. Society can come to a reasonable definition of what constitutes a pre-natal baby. I'm for that. but what I'm not for is pre-tending that a zygote or embryo or even a fetus in the earliest stages of development has rights comparable to that of an actual human being, namely, the woman that conceived it. I prioritize, at the beginning of pregnancy, the rights, needs, and interests of the woman (the actual human being), not what she has in her womb (i.e. body). She has sovereignty over her pregnancy, her reproductive system, and her body, early in the pregnancy. The more that the life in her womb develops into a human being, the less sovereignty she has to determine the course of her pregnancy.


Conservatives, especially the religious ones, completely disregard the needs and interests of the pregnant female. For them, it's all about the life in her womb, not the life of the woman. She's the human being that is pregnant and many of these religious conservatives completely dismiss the woman's concerns. Women can lose their jobs, their ability to support themselves financially, when they're pregnant. These same conservatives passionately argue for the rights of fetuses (they're the champions of fetuses), showing so much concern for pre-natal life, but then express that they have no responsibility for what is born from that pregnancy. The mother must bear the cost of pregnancy and the expense of raising her child, alone.

Where is the same love and concern that conservatives so vocally and passionately expressed for the zygote, embryo or fetus, for the baby and his or her mother? These conservatives vote for Republican politicians that often defund government social programs that help single mothers raise their children. These programs provide housing assistance, foodstamps, job training, employment opportunities, daycare vouchers, school lunches, after-school care, school supplies and clothing for the children..etc. Why are these "born again" and "spirit filled" Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, FOX News conservatives, so passionately championing, supporting and defending the lives of zygotes, embryos and fetuses, yet showing so much contempt and flippant disregard for the needs of single mothers and their babies? This is not the spirit of YHWH or His Son, these "Christian" conservatives are not the true disciples of Jesus Christ. The Living God cares not just for fetuses, but for the women and their babies as well. They're hypocrites.

When I was younger and homeless, the Christian homeless shelters would only provide me with the help that I needed to get back on my feet, if I joined the Christian discipleship program. I wasn't interested at the time in religion or spirituality. I had to sign in for my bed at the shelter by 5pm, so that meant I had to be standing in line for at least 30 minutes before that. How is a homeless person suppose to find a job, if they have to be back at the shelter by 4:30pm? There was poor security in the shelters, people using drugs and playing music all night. People coughing on you with TB, farting, stinky feet..etc. That's the solution to homelessness in America? These supposed Christians claim the church should run all of the social programs. That doesn't work. The so called "church", has way too many people worshiping money and the "good life" in this world. They're spiritually dead and unable to solve these social ills. They don't obey The Son of The Living God. They're not filled with the Holy Ghost and Power. The VA got me out of homelessness. The US federal government, not the "church" (i.e. circus).


We need our government to serve the people, and that includes single mothers and their babies. Don't pretend to care about zygotes and embryos when you're so indifferent to the needs of single mothers and their children.

 

[Leweman]

Do women who have abortions have the right to deny getting the Covid Vaccine. Granted the vaccine has been a huge failure (as predicted, like everything else democrat) but many people lost their jobs because of it. Does this apply though?

 

[Red Front]

Im sorry but if you get pregnant in today's world you arent trying to not get pregnant. Take your free birth control pills and require the person you're having sex with to use the free condoms available, and if you're not willing to do that or forget to take your pill and bring your condoms dont have sex. It's really that simple. But I get it you want to have sex, so you get to and you shouldnt have to be held accountable for that decision. So you get to punish the only innocent entity in this transaction by killing it. Congrats.

Maybe more people would become Christians in America and stop fornicating if the so-called Christians were actually Christians. With few exceptions, you're all just a bunch of lawless hypocrites. In your perfect world, women would only get pregnant when they're ready to be mothers. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. We live in a place where people are struggling to survive and most "Christians" in America don't give a hoot about the poor or working class. All they care about is their own good, not that of others. It's just a lot of "talk" with them, no action.