"common good" isn't "common good" when it's one party balancing rights vs another.

You're using loaded words to avoid actually engaging with the issue

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 4 2021 10:25am

you KNOW what the best way to lower the number of abortions is, yet i only ever see you and your ilk advocate in favour of taking women's rights away, of measures that will disproportionately hurt poor people and minorities.

if "responsibility" was what you're really after, you'd advocate for comprehensive sex ed, and fight back against christian conservative "purity" / abstinence bullshit. if "preserving life and promoting the common good" was your goal, you'd support a system that protects and helps parents and children, not shames and abandons them immediately after birth.

ideologically blinded people tend to delude themselves, claiming they're coming from a place of compassion, but they ignore the bigger picture, the reality of situation, and the fact that even those (rape / incest victims / severe medical complications...) they would generously allow such an unthinkable cruelty (until the mistress gets pregnant), will be hurt in the process.

putting your personal feelings, morals, and religious convictions over the rights of women - modern christianity at its best. the western taliban are alive and well in the US...

I dont think you need to be religious to be against abortion

I see it as the taking of a human life, surely no one disputes that?

This post was edited by duffman316 on Dec 4 2021 11:17am

That seems as arbitrary as pro-life folks who say that personhood is conferred when there's a fetal heartbeat, nociception, etc.

no one says you necessarily "need to be" religious to oppose women's rights, but clearly those two things are strongly connected - even if that might not be the case for everyone. however, no remotely informed person would deny that christian conservatives are the main drivers behind america's anti-choice frenzy.

since you see abortion as "taking a life", does that mean a woman having one or even multiple abortions should be put into prison / executed?

This post was edited by fender on Dec 4 2021 11:30am

For abortion if its within a certain time (1 month)
Any rape/incest resulting in pregnancy needs to be terminated immediately.

Seems rational and a good compromise.

This post was edited by lolkggz on Dec 4 2021 11:34am

Ultimately everything is arbitrary, but the capcity for consciousness is how we make all other decisions. Replace any organ in the body with an artificial version and they are still the same person until you change out their brain. Once we're able to do head transplants legal consequences are going to follow the head around. You don't get blamed for murder for having somebody else's liver in your body. Once we get artificial hearts that don't beat and just continuously pump blood and humans won't be thought of as any different. Etc. etc.

The pro-life folks are making ad-hoc exceptions for political reasons that relate more to control, hierarchy, and consequence rather than trying to come up with a consistent and morally correct judgement on what constitutes personhood. It's the reason why even well-intentioned posters are completely stumped by simple questions about hyatidiform moles and in-vitro fertilization.



1 month is arbitrary and the majority of pregnancies aren't even identified in the first month.

The emergence of consciousness is the only consistent way to define personhood.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 4 2021 11:39am

But I'm trying to understand what purpose your 23-week arbitrary cutoff serves. Are you in favor on bans on abortion for a fetus if they're 23+ weeks gestation?

That's an absurdly short timeline. You often don't know until weeks after that point.

There may be no symptoms indicating pregnancy until a missed cycle and even then cycles can be irregular so people pass it off as its just a late cycle. Granted my understanding is limited but this from what I understand can be common for someone going on and off various forms of birth control.

This post was edited by SBD on Dec 4 2021 11:50am

No, I already said to you that even after 23 weeks it's a balance between women's rights vs the fetus's right.

Prior to 23 weeks: Absolute right to abortion. It's an object, not a person

After 23 weeks: Balancing between bodily autonomy and fetus right to life.

My personal opinion is that until abortion becomes effectively the same risk and procedure as a birth it should be legal. At a certain point there's very little difference between carrying a fetus to term and birthing, versus getting an abortion, so the burden on the woman's rights becomes lesser. Where we set the crossover point is where we should be having the debate, but those on the right aren't approaching this topic honestly so we are stuck on if it should be allowed at all.

Kind of like climate change. It took 50 years from the time it was known with near certainty it was happening for right-wingers to even acknowledge it.