How come people who are against abortion are in favor of the death penalty? Kind of seems like a contradicition/
How come people who are against abortion are in favor of the death penalty? Kind of seems like a contradicition/
You're viewing a single thread.
The thing I’ve yet to figure out about the abortion debate, and what likely gets me labeled as a right-wing bigot for even daring to ask, is where 'pro-choice' people draw the line. The 'pro-life' view is clear: life starts at conception. However, I don’t know where the left draws the line, and in my mind, refusing to do so seems to suggest it would be fine even a day before birth, which seems like an equally extreme position.
To answer your question. They consider the argument of “where do you draw the line” to be a red herring.
Consider the following: if a person is in need for a kidney transplant, or else he would die, would it be ethical to force someone to donate their kidney against their will? I think not.
Same applies to abortions. You are being forced to feed a parasitic being in your body, a being that destroys your body in the process. And not having an option to abort would be to take away your bodily autonomy.
As for the line, I think that the person making that choice is the one that draws that line. It is not for us to decide.
Surely you can get rid of that 'parasite' in the first few months instead of waiting for the last minute? I don't see how drawing the line at, say 12 weeks now somehow takes away a person's bodily autonomy.
Speaking of a red herring, a comparison to a forced kidney donation is completely irrelevant here.
Yup in practice it is probably less risky and less invasive to do it early for the host. But that is a separate question. I thought you meant to question the classic “when would it be considered murder” so that is what I responded to.
You are being forced to feed a parasitic being in your body, a being that destroys your body in the process.
Okay, let's take this reasoning even further then. Why can't this same logic be used to a 3 year old?
The same logic does work on a 3 year old. A parent is not forced to feed it and can have someone remove it. They just don't call it abortion. https://adoption.com/how-to-give-a-child-up-for-adoption/
Maybe some day a fetus can be removed without killing it, but 3 year olds already have that ability.
Then have the child and give it up for adoption? If you don’t want to keep it, you can freely abort it until, say, 12 weeks, after which you’d need a medical reason and a statement from one or two doctors. I don’t see what the issue is here.
I’m not saying this is exactly how it should be, but something along those lines. The idea that someone should be free to abort a 7-month-old fetus if they choose seems quite extreme to me.
deciding what others can or cannot do is a whole other moral discussion.
Cause then it is no longer connected to your body? Why would the same logic apply here? I am confused what argument you are trying to make
Because a 3 year old is SENTINENT. It can FEEL things, unlike a fetus.
I’m pretty sure an 8-month-old fetus can feel things and is sentient, so that’s a moot point unless you’re going to argue that sentience appears at the moment of birth - which we both know isn’t true.
So.. Why can't we abort 3 year olds?
Oh, you're just a stupid reactionary. Get blocked idiot.
For all the left people I know, including myself, The reason we don't want a line drawn is because sometimes special circumstances arise. There may be medical complications in the third trimester that would result in the mother's death and it's not feasible to exhaustively list every scenario that could land her in this situation so it's better to just not a put a limit on it so she doesn't have some bullshit hoop to jump through later while she's dying.
That said, I don't think there's anyone genuinely arguing that people should be allowed to get abortions super late into the pregnancy just for funsies. Third trimester is the logical cut off to me, and most of the people I know agree or want it slightly shorter. We just don't want the law to specify that since it can cause legal complications. It's better that it be considered a medical standard.
I don’t think that drawing a line means it wouldn’t be allowed under any circumstances after that. Before the line, it would be at the mother’s discretion, and after passing the line, you’d need a statement from one or two doctors and a valid medical reason for it.
Where I live abortion is legal untill 12 weeks and after that you need a medical reason for it and a statement from 2 doctors. What's wrong with this?
You need to prove you're going to die to 2 different doctors? Sounds like you need to be lucky which is exactly what we don't want.
How do you know you're going to die due to pregnancy without visiting a doctor? You're not going there to prove anything. You're going there for a diagnosis. Doctor is the medical expert, not the mother.
That doctor also needs to have it confirmed by another doctor though? Seems odd, and also sounds like the perfect way to deny abortions to women who need them.
I don’t know what hellhole you live in, but where I’m from, doctors don’t arbitrarily deny abortions to someone whose life is in danger. The reason you need a second opinion is because you had three months to decide whether you want to keep it or not. If it’s been more than that, the child is already so far developed that you’ll need a medical reason to abort it, and at that point, 'I changed my mind' is no longer a good enough reason to end the life of a living, feeling being. Also, after that point you generally also need surgery to remove the dead fetus.
You must be lucky to not live in one of the many American states which have laws actively causing many women to die.
Lucky? I thought the 12 week limit and need for 2 doctor statements after that was outrageous.
are you a sleeper account? 7mo old acct & in 1h you’ve responded 2x to emotionally charged political topics with sidelining , near-no-commitment comments that take up space & try to dilute the issue
Abortion is a human right. Death penalty is cruel & horrifying.
Death penalty is justice. Abortion is cruel & horrifying.
See? That's how convincing your reasoning is. Luckily the other people responding are atleast addressing the question.
Revenge is rarely justice. You also entirely avoided there comment.
Well I'm not going to defend death penalty because I'm against it. My point was to illustrate how poor argument that is.
I replied to their accusation on another thread.
Not everyone agrees on an exact time, typically the viability of the fetus outside of the womb is the consideration.
This would mean a baby that would be just premature wouldn't be aborted. As you move back the viability would end up varying for each pregnancy, which is why after a set point doctors are involved. They then make a medical judgement balancing the viability and safety to the carrier.
So there is no hard date. The insistence on getting one simplifies a complicated issue where nuance is important.
I've noticed that a lot of anti-abortion laws target doctors, specifically to make the fuzzy nature of the cuttoff difficult.
Clear and simple makes things easy, but easy is not always better. Also, the “life begins at conception” position only seems clear on the surface, but if you look deep enough things get quite muddled.
For example, is a zygote a single person? What if it later divides and becomes twins or triplets: did the twin’s life begin at conception? Did one life become two? Is a zygote a ball of life that can become one or more people?
What about miscarriages? It’s thought as many as half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, but most happen so early that the carrier is not even aware they’re pregnant. If you come across a family with four kids, do you assume they likely had another 3-4 lost lives via miscarriage and hold a funeral for them?
Should people start getting child tax benefits as soon as they have a positive pregnancy test? Or is “life starts at conception” only relevant when we’re talking about abortion, but conveniently ignored everywhere else?
And what if there is a complication with pregnancy, where if an abortion is not performed both the carrier and developing human will likely die, but if an abortion is performed only the developing human will likely die? Is it now permissible? What if the carrier is a 14 year old who was raped, is suicidal, and has a high chance of stabbing themselves in the abdomen to try to self-abort if they’re not able to get an abortion: should they be restrained in a padded room until the baby is born, forced to serve as an incubator for a baby that the state will then take?
Even when your cutoff is strict, it is not always “clear” because this is a complex issue without a clear answer.
But to answer your question specifically:
Pro-choice people generally recognize that abortion is not desirable, but disagree exactly what the rules should be. Abortion does the least harm when the pregnancy is a single cell (zygote,) and in the embryo stage where most abortions occur the developing human is essentially a collection of multiple cell lines becoming differentiated into tissue but not yet developing functional organs (you’ll often hear this called “a clump of cells.”)
As the embryo develops into a fetus, the heart and brain develop and start functioning, which is where some pro-choice people start to draw a line. Others point toward viability: at about 22 weeks, a few fetuses have been known to survive with extraordinary health measures. By 36 weeks, fetuses can be live born without any extra health issues from being born early. So starting about 20 weeks, we start to recognize that pregnancies become more and more viable: that’s where a lot of people draw the line.
A very small percentage of abortions are done late in pregnancy, typically for health reasons. Not all pro-choice people are in favor of legalizing this, but many feel that in these situations, abortion is a tough decision that is best made by a patient in a careful discussion with their doctor, not by a politician they will never meet. So while these pro-choice people may not wish to see an abortion performed within a week or two of natural birth, they do not want to outlaw it so that the option is there for people who truly need it.
I mean the pro-life stance is clear in the sense that they generally don’t accept abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger. So when someone is 'pro-life,' I know what that means. However, when someone says they’re 'pro-choice,' I don’t always know what they mean. I’ve assumed most people draw the line somewhere around three months, after which you’d need a medical reason and a doctor’s statement to proceed. But based on the replies I’ve gotten here, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Many seem to suggest that no such lines should be drawn at all and even go as far as calling the baby a parasite, which seems a bit crazy to me to put it lightly.
I know such lines are arbitrary and there's no practical difference between one day and another but what seems obvious to me is that a total ban and allowing it at 8 months for any other that a serious medical reason are both equally extreme stances and the 'truth' is there somewhere in between.
Is it universal that pro-lifers only make exception if the life of the person carrying the pregnancy is in danger? I’ve seen pro-lifers who make exception for rape and incest, and others who would advocate banning it in all instances, even when the life of both is at risk.
For at least pro-choice voters, many are more concerned with the line being drawn by doctors, and not by politicians. So it's less about where the line is being drawn and more about who, with the proper education, is doing the drawing.
Maybe I should’ve been more specific - I meant the point after which you need to consult a doctor to go ahead with an abortion. I think most people agree that a fetus just a few weeks old is barely a living thing, so aborting it is hardly different from, cumming in a sock. However, there is a point after which we’re no longer talking about a lump of cells but a sentient being, and to me at least, it seems reasonable that after that point, you’d need a medical reason to do it.
Where I’m from, that line is at 12 weeks. Until then, you’re free to do it for whatever reason you want. The unwillingness to draw any line like that means they'd be okay aborting an 8 month old too even for financial reasons and that just sounds fucking insane to me.
If we have reached the day prior to birth the person carrying doesn't want an abortion. It's therefore fine to leave the decision to them and their medical team.
- Momma’s threat “I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it” hits harder.