spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It's possible. You can be against abortion, but still not want the government to deny abortion rights.
Is Abortion Murder?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
I see no reason why not. It's not very logical if you're anti-abortion, but I can see where someone might feel obliged to leave it up to the individual.
Bowser said:
Oh, is this another one of those electoral cycles?
It comes up every once in a while, when Democrats feel compelled by the tenor of the public discourse to reiterate that pretty much everyone is "anti-abortion". The difference is exactly what you point to. One political juxtaposition, for instance, is to consider, to the one, those in the discourse who want to reduce the number of abortions through reduction of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and then try to figure, to the other, how the seemingly contradictory, overlapping interests of purity culture play into it. Remember that anti-abortion rhetoric campaigns against birth control. Add in overlapping factions that would groom females for service to men, such as the Duggars, or even just the average, cheap homophobe who thinks women should only find intimacy with men, and even the Infinite Prevention Advocacy, right of men to sexually harass women, and the calculated economic disempowerment of women that sees Republicans like Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN07) arguing that equal treatment under law would insult and denigrate women, and it really is hard to ignore that nagging sense that this really is about putting women back in their places as breeding vessels.
There is a perpetual semantics game afoot; anti-abortion likes to call itself "pro-life", and often describes pro-choice as "pro-abortion". Starting with that framework, it is easy enough to arrive at the statemnt you've offered, but overwhelmingly, pro-choice is also, quite technically, anti-abortion. How often people forget this can certainly be disconcerting, but it is also extraneously complicating.
It's just, you know, I see where you're going, but compared to history there's something of a sleight about your presentation.
Being anti-abortion and pro-choice, though, is not very logical if the point is to dehumanize and subordinate women.
Secular Sanity
Registered Senior Member
Exactly. Thanks!
“The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.”
But there’s this new wave of feminism that doesn’t want restrictive abortion laws. A so-called ‘Dry Foot Policy’, aka ‘Abortion on Demand’, with zero restrictions.
Tiassa, (correct me if I’m wrong) feels that the right to life begins at birth. Any time prior to birth the fetus can be killed inside the uterus, but to kill a viable fetus, (let's say of 24 weeks) outside the uterus is considered murder. It’s odd to me. It doesn’t seem right to me that a being’s right to life should depend on its location.
Last edited:
To a whale you're a tiny collection of cells. Doesn't make you non-human.
I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. I think abortion is generally the worst possible solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. The reason I am pro-choice is that I don't think it's OK to impose my belief on others.
Well the issue here is sentience. A clump of cells isn't sentient, a human being is.
It's not complicated at all. I prefer to view it as a battle to recognize the infant life and its rights. It's not that we don't recognize the woman, but rather, we also recognize the person she carries. We're dealing with death on an industrial scale (Fifty Million+). If it were two consenting adults, then yeah, but that's not the case. One life is being subordinated to the wishes of another.
Some people disagree with abortion but won't give it more than a frown; whereas, others will actually protest and write their elected, trying to bring about change. It's the same with any issue that has two extreme sides of view. This one, though, involves life in the balance.
Would it be a matter of 'choice" if it were any other person in jeopardy? This is what bothers me about this issue, since it's encapsulated within a woman, it has no rights of its own--much less the right to life.
Bowser said:
Fallacious redefinition of zygote, blastocyst, or fetus to "person".
You might remember sixteen or so months of discussion about the implications of asserting equal protection from inside another person.
Look, I'm glad you all are finally getting around to even trying to wrap your heads around the issue, but quit with the bullshit reframing.
As much as I appreciated your candor in that thread, I think you're making an error here trying to seize the issue as you have attempted. After all, you're once again blatantly and specifically ignoring the rights of the female human who carries the growing organism inside her.
All you managed to do there is reiterate the disgusting misogyny of the anti-abortion movement, and until y'all purge that, all your pretty, invented rhetoric is going to be scrutinized accordingly.
You know, you made this point earlier about personality clashes and all that. It rings a bit hollow when this is how you choose to conduct yourself going forward.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It's not the size, it's the state of development.
It's an honest reply. I've attacked nobody, though I did ask a question. Life is HUGE. Whether you take it away from a person independent of the womb or take it away from a fetus within the body, you will have cheated them of something that is, really, amazing.
My first reply was not an attack on your character, it was just a response to the above.
So someone is not human until they are ~25 years old?
In some cases (like euthanasia) yes, it is still a matter of choice.
It _does_ have rights of its own; indeed, in many states it is a crime to harm or kill a fetus if your intent is malicious (i.e. you are shooting into a crowd.) It is just that the rights of the mother take priority.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It has to do with the number of cells and the differentiation of structures.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
And very, very common.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Right.
A personal choice made by the person who chooses to end their own life, in most cases. If I have a living will that stipulates the option of pulling the plug, them yes, it is permissible. In rare cases, very rare cases, the family might be given the opportunity to dictate death for another family member, but I would be surprised if that would go unchallenged.
As the law permits at present.