Just Abortion theory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pro-choice up until birth.

Even the day before? Three days before? A week?

Wow. What a sick thought

Strawman. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare. When they there are very good, and often sad, reasons.

So are abortions for rape, incest and “health care” for the mother.

Link from credible source please - I don’t think that this is not true. There are often medical emergencies during child birth reflected by the fact that America has highest maternity death rates in the western world. Many women are sexually assaulted and only a small fraction are reported to police as they are so often shamed into feeling they deserved it somehow. Sort of the like the way you have been implying that women would t get pregnant if they just kept their legs together.

Abortions by victims of rape are ~1%
Abortions after 26 weeks (third trimester) are ~0.02%

So say, 6200/yr for rape and 125 for third trimester. Rare and extremely rare.

Given the resources required to obtain a third trimester abortion these are not trivial decisions.

Anyway, rape is one of many “just” reasons why a woman will decide to get an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whenever you personally believe life begins, is fine for you. But different religions have very clear scriptural differences, and you cannot decide that for everyone - unless you want others to impose *their* religious ideas on you.

I understand that many people believe that an embryo is important and valuable. Be that as it is, I find it utterly insane to think that an embryo is equal to an existing woman. A woman who exists, is here, is alive, has a life of her own, will ALWAYS be MORE important. To say that a woman is 100% equal in value to an embryo... well that says a lot about you and your abhorrent beliefs about women.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pro-choice up until birth.

Even the day before? Three days before? A week?

Wow. What a sick thought

Strawman. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare. When they there are very good, and often sad, reasons.

So are abortions for rape, incest and “health care” for the mother.

Link from credible source please - I don’t think that this is not true. There are often medical emergencies during child birth reflected by the fact that America has highest maternity death rates in the western world. Many women are sexually assaulted and only a small fraction are reported to police as they are so often shamed into feeling they deserved it somehow. Sort of the like the way you have been implying that women would t get pregnant if they just kept their legs together.

Abortions by victims of rape are ~1%
Abortions after 26 weeks (third trimester) are ~0.02%

So say, 6200/yr for rape and 125 for third trimester. Rare and extremely rare.

Given the resources required to obtain a third trimester abortion these are not trivial decisions.

Anyway, rape is one of many “just” reasons why a woman will decide to get an abortion.

Agree - there are many just reasons.

[Anonymous]

Scientifically speaking, humans go through many stages of development: fetal, newborn, toddlerhood, childhood, young adult, adult, senior. How can anyone dispute this? If you want to kill off people in a certain phase of development, you better have a much better argument than "mental health of the mother." The only possible rationale for abortion is that the fetus is residing within the mother while the human in other stages are outside of the mother. So that's why I posed the removal of fetus thought experiment. And all I heard was BS avoidance tactics. "You don't have a right to take my embryo!" Says who? You had a right to not create another human being, but you did and now that human should have some rights. While his rights might not trump the mothers, you don't have an absolute right to kill another human just for the sake of control (vs letting me or govt take it).

And it doesn't matter that third trimester terminations are rare. You all are arguing against any type of checks, only "my body my choice." So you better be ok with women terminating for unwanted gender (see China and East Asia), and down the road, height, eye color, skin pigment. Are you ok with that? If not, on what grounds would you object?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Scientifically speaking, humans go through many stages of development: fetal, newborn, toddlerhood, childhood, young adult, adult, senior. How can anyone dispute this? If you want to kill off people in a certain phase of development, you better have a much better argument than "mental health of the mother." The only possible rationale for abortion is that the fetus is residing within the mother while the human in other stages are outside of the mother. So that's why I posed the removal of fetus thought experiment. And all I heard was BS avoidance tactics. "You don't have a right to take my embryo!" Says who? You had a right to not create another human being, but you did and now that human should have some rights. While his rights might not trump the mothers, you don't have an absolute right to kill another human just for the sake of control (vs letting me or govt take it).

And it doesn't matter that third trimester terminations are rare. You all are arguing against any type of checks, only "my body my choice." So you better be ok with women terminating for unwanted gender (see China and East Asia), and down the road, height, eye color, skin pigment. Are you ok with that? If not, on what grounds would you object?

Yes I am. I am also okay with terminating based on developmental disabilities & financial reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Scientifically speaking, humans go through many stages of development: fetal, newborn, toddlerhood, childhood, young adult, adult, senior. How can anyone dispute this? If you want to kill off people in a certain phase of development, you better have a much better argument than "mental health of the mother." The only possible rationale for abortion is that the fetus is residing within the mother while the human in other stages are outside of the mother. So that's why I posed the removal of fetus thought experiment. And all I heard was BS avoidance tactics. "You don't have a right to take my embryo!" Says who? You had a right to not create another human being, but you did and now that human should have some rights. While his rights might not trump the mothers, you don't have an absolute right to kill another human just for the sake of control (vs letting me or govt take it).

What you’re missing, because you don’t give a sh!t about women, is that the human fetus can kill the human woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Scientifically speaking, humans go through many stages of development: fetal, newborn, toddlerhood, childhood, young adult, adult, senior. How can anyone dispute this? If you want to kill off people in a certain phase of development, you better have a much better argument than "mental health of the mother." The only possible rationale for abortion is that the fetus is residing within the mother while the human in other stages are outside of the mother. So that's why I posed the removal of fetus thought experiment. And all I heard was BS avoidance tactics. "You don't have a right to take my embryo!" Says who? You had a right to not create another human being, but you did and now that human should have some rights. While his rights might not trump the mothers, you don't have an absolute right to kill another human just for the sake of control (vs letting me or govt take it).

And it doesn't matter that third trimester terminations are rare. You all are arguing against any type of checks, only "my body my choice." So you better be ok with women terminating for unwanted gender (see China and East Asia), and down the road, height, eye color, skin pigment. Are you ok with that? If not, on what grounds would you object?

After viability, you could argue about rights of the fetus. But, ultimately, it’s the woman’s choice if she wants to continue the pregnancy. You don’t control her, despite your religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Back to OP's original post, no, just abortion theory does not work because fetuses are wholly innocent, regardless of how they came to exist in the first place. They may have been the product of violent rape or may be causing severe distress (mental or physical) to the mother, but none of those things are actually the fault of the fetus. So whatever violence you choose to inflect on the fetus is not in response to any action of the fetus, but in response to the mother's own experiences/circumstances. To go down this just abortion theory, you are essentially arguing that it may be sometimes permissible to harm innocent life for another good (maybe even greater good), aka utilitarianism. No serious Christian will go down that route with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pro-choice up until birth.

Even the day before? Three days before? A week?

Wow. What a sick thought

Strawman. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare. When they there are very good, and often sad, reasons.

So are abortions for rape, incest and “health care” for the mother.

Link from credible source please - I don’t think that this is not true. There are often medical emergencies during child birth reflected by the fact that America has highest maternity death rates in the western world. Many women are sexually assaulted and only a small fraction are reported to police as they are so often shamed into feeling they deserved it somehow. Sort of the like the way you have been implying that women would t get pregnant if they just kept their legs together.

Google is your friend, OP. You can find this information anywhere: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scientifically speaking, humans go through many stages of development: fetal, newborn, toddlerhood, childhood, young adult, adult, senior. How can anyone dispute this? If you want to kill off people in a certain phase of development, you better have a much better argument than "mental health of the mother." The only possible rationale for abortion is that the fetus is residing within the mother while the human in other stages are outside of the mother. So that's why I posed the removal of fetus thought experiment. And all I heard was BS avoidance tactics. "You don't have a right to take my embryo!" Says who? You had a right to not create another human being, but you did and now that human should have some rights. While his rights might not trump the mothers, you don't have an absolute right to kill another human just for the sake of control (vs letting me or govt take it).

And it doesn't matter that third trimester terminations are rare. You all are arguing against any type of checks, only "my body my choice." So you better be ok with women terminating for unwanted gender (see China and East Asia), and down the road, height, eye color, skin pigment. Are you ok with that? If not, on what grounds would you object?

After viability, you could argue about rights of the fetus. But, ultimately, it’s the woman’s choice if she wants to continue the pregnancy. You don’t control her, despite your religious beliefs.

You didn't answer the question: would you ever object to systemic termination based on gender or characteristics? because that is coming and what will you say.

And yes, I can't control anyone. I am not arguing that. We are arguing whether society and law should give some rights to the fetus, or whether we should subject the life and death of a whole sub-set of the human population to the COMPLETE whims of another person (the mother). The only other times we do that what, slavery, holocaust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scientifically speaking, humans go through many stages of development: fetal, newborn, toddlerhood, childhood, young adult, adult, senior. How can anyone dispute this? If you want to kill off people in a certain phase of development, you better have a much better argument than "mental health of the mother." The only possible rationale for abortion is that the fetus is residing within the mother while the human in other stages are outside of the mother. So that's why I posed the removal of fetus thought experiment. And all I heard was BS avoidance tactics. "You don't have a right to take my embryo!" Says who? You had a right to not create another human being, but you did and now that human should have some rights. While his rights might not trump the mothers, you don't have an absolute right to kill another human just for the sake of control (vs letting me or govt take it).

What you’re missing, because you don’t give a sh!t about women, is that the human fetus can kill the human woman.

what you're missing because you either can't read or just want to ignore inconvenient points, is that no serious religion is arguing the woman should just die when her life is in real danger. So stop this strawman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scientifically speaking, humans go through many stages of development: fetal, newborn, toddlerhood, childhood, young adult, adult, senior. How can anyone dispute this? If you want to kill off people in a certain phase of development, you better have a much better argument than "mental health of the mother." The only possible rationale for abortion is that the fetus is residing within the mother while the human in other stages are outside of the mother. So that's why I posed the removal of fetus thought experiment. And all I heard was BS avoidance tactics. "You don't have a right to take my embryo!" Says who? You had a right to not create another human being, but you did and now that human should have some rights. While his rights might not trump the mothers, you don't have an absolute right to kill another human just for the sake of control (vs letting me or govt take it).

And it doesn't matter that third trimester terminations are rare. You all are arguing against any type of checks, only "my body my choice." So you better be ok with women terminating for unwanted gender (see China and East Asia), and down the road, height, eye color, skin pigment. Are you ok with that? If not, on what grounds would you object?

Yes I am. I am also okay with terminating based on developmental disabilities & financial reasons.

Awesome for you, at least you are honest. I suspect most people don't want to live in a world where everyone is selecting for a set of "desirable" characteristics and terminating all their children who don't measure up. But that is probably where we are headed, so at least you are ready!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scientifically speaking, humans go through many stages of development: fetal, newborn, toddlerhood, childhood, young adult, adult, senior. How can anyone dispute this? If you want to kill off people in a certain phase of development, you better have a much better argument than "mental health of the mother." The only possible rationale for abortion is that the fetus is residing within the mother while the human in other stages are outside of the mother. So that's why I posed the removal of fetus thought experiment. And all I heard was BS avoidance tactics. "You don't have a right to take my embryo!" Says who? You had a right to not create another human being, but you did and now that human should have some rights. While his rights might not trump the mothers, you don't have an absolute right to kill another human just for the sake of control (vs letting me or govt take it).

And it doesn't matter that third trimester terminations are rare. You all are arguing against any type of checks, only "my body my choice." So you better be ok with women terminating for unwanted gender (see China and East Asia), and down the road, height, eye color, skin pigment. Are you ok with that? If not, on what grounds would you object?

After viability, you could argue about rights of the fetus. But, ultimately, it’s the woman’s choice if she wants to continue the pregnancy. You don’t control her, despite your religious beliefs.

You didn't answer the question: would you ever object to systemic termination based on gender or characteristics? because that is coming and what will you say.

And yes, I can't control anyone. I am not arguing that. We are arguing whether society and law should give some rights to the fetus, or whether we should subject the life and death of a whole sub-set of the human population to the COMPLETE whims of another person (the mother). The only other times we do that what, slavery, holocaust.

Strawman. We aren’t seeing this. In fact, we have women LOSING their rights across the country. The issue here isn’t obscure ‘what if’ reasons to terminate. Would I object? Depends. Purely cosmetic? Sure. But what if there were underlying gender-based medical issues?

Women aren’t just out there getting abortions for fun. You’re minimizing the very real struggles and very real reasons why the vast majority of women choose to terminate their pregnancies.

Why don’t you trust women to make the best decisions for themselves and their families? Why should women be subject to the whims of your religious beliefs?

People who want to oppress half of the living, breathing people on earth may want refrain from references to slavery or the Holocaust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to OP's original post, no, just abortion theory does not work because fetuses are wholly innocent, regardless of how they came to exist in the first place. They may have been the product of violent rape or may be causing severe distress (mental or physical) to the mother, but none of those things are actually the fault of the fetus. So whatever violence you choose to inflect on the fetus is not in response to any action of the fetus, but in response to the mother's own experiences/circumstances. To go down this just abortion theory, you are essentially arguing that it may be sometimes permissible to harm innocent life for another good (maybe even greater good), aka utilitarianism. No serious Christian will go down that route with you.

How do people so obsessed with the concept of life eat meat? I don’t get that disconnect.

[Anonymous]

Here’s the thing: I don’t care if some theocrat doesn’t think abortion is ever “just.”