Abortion: The Thread

[Celever]

I never once called animals human. This entire time I have been talking about human fetuses, differentiating that human's are inherently valuable. You're gonna have to quote me on that one.

Firstly did you really debunk it though? You didn't. I think it comes down to how valuable do we think life inherently is. I know I edited my previous response too late when you replied, but like I said, my stance on humanity/life is read back to orch's previous post (I c/p'd below), and mesh that in with the fact that it has a separate DNA and unique genetic code.

Orch's post only posted the scientific definition of life in general i.e. of a water bear, head louse, sea anemone, and also a human and other mammals. You tried to build upon it because "it has a separate DNA and unique genetic code" which is also true of a water bear, head louse, sea anemone, and also a human and other mammals. Therefore, your stance on humanity includes all animals whether you realise it or not.

 

[willempju]

willempju bodily integrity has nothing to do with an independent being with independent DNA. A fetus is not the woman's body.

Which precisely means that the woman has no obligation whatsoever to provide her bodily resources to the foetus.

 

[Dece1t]

Orch's post only posted the scientific definition of life in general i.e. of a water bear, head louse, sea anemone, and also a human and other mammals. You tried to build upon it because "it has a separate DNA and unique genetic code" which is also true of a water bear, head louse, sea anemone, and also a human and other mammals. Therefore, your stance on humanity includes all animals whether you realise it or not.

Yea, animals are lives. I'm going to repeat this for the last time since clearly you cannot read once so ever. Human life, in my opinion, is inherently more valuable. In addition, you don't see us aborting animal babies. You may see us eating animals for food, but everyone acknowledges they are lives. A human fetus is still human, it has human DNA, it has its own unique genetic code, and it can develop into one of us.

 

[Dece1t]

Which precisely means that the woman has no obligation whatsoever to provide her bodily resources to the foetus.

She had a hand in creating it, that is what sex does. Having sex is a conscious decision. That does not give you the right to kill it.

 

[Stealthbomber16]

Holy shit that comparison to giving blood broke him

I love that argument

 

[Dece1t]

Holy shit that comparison to giving blood broke him

I love that argument

You choose to give blood, no one is forcing you.

 

[Celever]

Yea, animals are lives. I'm going to repeat this for the last time since clearly you cannot read once so ever. Human life, in my opinion, is inherently more valuable. In addition, you don't see us aborting animal babies. You may see us eating animals for food, but everyone acknowledges they are lives. A human fetus is still human, it has human DNA, it has its own unique genetic code, and it can develop into one of us.

Great, so I'll quote Many's response to this because he edited it at the bottom of the last page and I don't think you've seen it.

EDIT: Great, hopefully now you can stop bringing up things like the fetus being able to survive outside of the womb and just accept that your viewpoint is a spiritual belief that cannot be debated

That human DNA is the only thing that elevates humans above animals is a spiritual belief. Secularly, humans are above animals because of our output. Foetuses have no output.

Echoing Stealthbomber that the blood-giving argument was actually a really good one and I haven't heard it before. Kudos, willempju.

You choose to give blood, no one is forcing you.

That's the point. Forcing women to deliver their foetuses is the equivalent of forcing someone to give blood.

 

[willempju]

She had a hand in creating it, that is what sex does dumbass. Having sex is a conscious decision. That does not give you the right to kill it.

You also cannot be forced to give blood to someone if you are the reason they need it. Same point

 

[Dece1t]

Great, so I'll quote Many's response to this because he edited it at the bottom of the last page and I don't think you've seen it.

That human DNA is the only thing that elevates humans above animals is a spiritual belief. Secularly, humans are above animals because of our output. Foetuses have no output.

Echoing Stealthbomber that the blood-giving argument was actually a really good one and I haven't heard it before. Kudos, willempju.

That's the point. Forcing women to deliver their foetuses is the equivalent of forcing someone to give blood.

Blood cells are not lives. Refer back to orch's definition. That is what makes that example completely inapplicable.

Secondly, there have been arguments about sentience. Does that not equate to spirituality by your definition, especially now that for sone stupid as all shit reason we're meshing animals into this discussion?

Finally, no that does not mean I'm basing my argument off of spirituality. Look around you. Look at our cities, houses, the fact that we can govern. Look at the traits of present and past civilizations, compared to animals, I have more than enough non-spiritual reasoning to say that humans are inherently valuable.

You've proven nothing otherwise, other than now add animals into a human life conversation and cry wolf about any of the pro-life posts resorting to spirituality. You're the only wants making mention to it? Is it like we're dogwhistling now??

Edit: Readdressing the first point. By that same token, no one is forcing women to not have sex and do whatever on Earth they want with their sex lives. It's your choice in the end as to whether you want to produce a baby or not.

 

[Celever]

Blood cells are not lives, you dumbass. Refer back to orch's definition. That is what makes that example completely inapplicable.

Secondly, there have been arguments about sentience. Does that not equate to spirituality by your definition, especially now that for sone stupid as all shit reason we're meshing animals into this discussion?

Finally, no that does not mean I'm basing my argument off of spiritualoty. Look around you. Look at our cities, houses, the fact that we can govern. Look at the traits of present and past civilizations, compared to animals, i have more than enough non-spiritual reasoning to say that himans are inherently valuable.

You've proven nothing otherwise, other than now add animals into a human life conversation and cry wolf about any of the pro-life posts resorting to spirituality. You're the only wants making mention to it? Is it like we're dogwhistling now??

I don't think you know what inherently means. Inherently means that something has always been a characteristic of x, it is necessarily a characteristic of x and, most importantly, those two things mean that the "inherent" characteristic is an intrinsic characteristic of x. You cannot use extrinsic things as a proof of an intrinsic characteristic; that's a contradiction.

The first human, who had human DNA, extrinsically was the equivalent of an animal. The cities, houses, and Government that humans have developed may give those humans who achieved those things extrinsic worth now, but before it was accomplished they had no extrinsic value. A foetus who is cared about and wanted by their mother immediately has extrinsic value to their mother, and those foetuses, if all goes well and a miscarriage doesn't occur, is born. An unwanted foetus who isn't cared about by their mother at this stage has no extrinsic value, and therefore it is not valuable as a human.

To argue that all foetuses are intrinsically valuable is a spiritual belief. Prior human accomplishments mean nothing about the worth of that foetus.

Edit: As per Many's point, I want to elaborate that my use of human in this post assumes personhood. Personally I see things as either person or animal, where all people are humans.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Blood cells are not lives. Refer back to orch's definition. That is what makes that example completely inapplicable.

blood cells are not alive, they are only cells.

No you don't understand, it's not just a clump of cells, zygotes are alive, it's different

 

[Dece1t]

blood cells are not alive, they are only cells.

No, it's not just a clump of cells, zygotes are alive, it's different

I am going to blow a fuse, my fucking gosh.

Orch just outlined how a zygote is alive by a biologically agreeable definition. It is not just a clump of cells. I'm getting incredibly sick of repeating that, I'm not doing it again.

 

[shade]

seems like one of those moments we could agree to disagree doesnt it lads

for my sanity

 

[ManOfMany]

stop bringing up Orch's definition. Most human cells are actually life according to that definition. A cell maintains homeostasis, it responds to stimuli, metabolizes energy, and it reproduces. The definition of what is considered life is incredibly contentious and for the sake of abortion, it does not matter what is considered life. The pro-choice argument accepts that it is life, and even human life, but rather argues that a fetus doesn't have the status of personhood

edited for accuracy

 

[orch]

blood cells are not alive, they are only cells.

No you don't understand, it's not just a clump of cells, zygotes are alive, it's different

stop bringing up Orch's definition. Blood is actually life according to that definition. A blood cell maintains homeostasis, it responds to stimuli, metabolizes energy, and it reproduces. The definition of what is considered life is incredibly contentious and for the sake of abortion, it does not matter what is considered life. The pro-choice argument accepts that it is life, and even human life, but rather argues that a fetus doesn't have the status of personhood

Human blood cells can't reproduce. They're made from stem cells and lack nucleus and various organelles that would allow them to reproduce. Get your facts straight.

 

[ManOfMany]

Human blood cells can't reproduce. They're made from stem cells and lack nucleus and various organelles that would allow them to reproduce. Get your facts straight.

Some white blood cells can. It does not matter anyway because this argument holds no weight. Replace it with stem cells or skin cells or bacteria but the core of the argument is philosophical.

A fetus certainly has value. I think we can all agree there. True, biologically, it is hard to make an argument for a fetus, especially early fetus, in regards to personhood. Early fetus have no brain activity at all, and a fetus has no capacity for thought in the sense that we understand. A fetus does not have the capacity for pain until much later in its development. "The neuroanatomical system for pain can be considered complete by 26 weeks' gestation." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/ In comparison to an animal such as a pig, a fetus pales in comparison in its concepts of rational thought and emotion. (Certainly, it has potential, but the potential argument has already been refuted many times ). The value of the fetus in the pro-choice argument is due to the emotional connection it has to the already alive human beings, primarily the mother, and the smaller capacity the fetus has for suffering depending on the stage of development. If a mother wants an abortion she does not have emotional value in the fetus that outweighs her value in her own independence. The mother as a full adult person's right to do with her body would generally outweigh the value a fetus has in its life.

 

[Celticpride]

At what point does a fetus develop Midi-Chlorians? After that abortion is murder

 

[JALMONT]

I wonder what the point of these threads are except as a means for some kind of intellectual grandstanding which seems to be ever so important when on the internet (see: that post saying to “read Kant and kierkegaard” as if saying that is supposed to convey some sort of great and profound meaning. You’d think if you are that intelligent maybe you could just summarize it for the rest of us dumb people...). I suppose people must find some enjoyment in arguing over abstractions although I have to guess that again there’s some sense of triumph in feeling so smart striking down one’s opponent. Although I would of course admit that certain users don’t really do themselves any favors...(abortion=holocaust??? Come on...)

In any case I very much doubt looking to science will provide any suitable answers, unless you already know what answer you are looking for. Science doesn’t tell us anything about what is right or wrong so I think hoping or assuming that science has a solution isn’t the right way to go about it. frankly I think the way in which the abortion debate is framed is not conducive to coming to a sort of solution. Abortion will not end if banned and criminalizing the practice is nonsensical. From the perspective of abortion is not desirable, shouldn’t we then spend our time thinking about why people are having abortions and trying to address those problems vs blaming people for having sex. It’s hypocritical to tell people to “live with their decisions” because you have no idea what you would do in that situation (even more so as a male). But I suspect that it’s much more difficult to advocate for and address the issues of the living poor and disadvantaged.

of course by the way deceit frames it maybe abortion is used as a form of birth control but that is not my understanding. my impression is that most abortions are a personal decision that isn’t taken lightly (so I choose to be compassionate towards those who are faced with that choice) but if I’m wrong I’d love to be enlightened. either way I think it’s more interesting to discuss why people choose abortions and think about addressing those reasons. I’d imagine it would be easier to find common ground there...

And that's why this debate won't end on a conclusion. It's not the purpose of a debate but I mean we will never agree.
Pro-lifes are spiritual. They consider a foetus like a Human once the egg is fertilized. For them, abortion is a mass slaughter
Pro-choices consider a foetus like a bunch of cells during the first weeks. For us, it's the same thing than losing cells.

It's impossible to debate on beliefs. Even with 0 prove of its existence, people still believe in God centuries after centuries.

I just want to mention a last thing which doesn't have been much said during the previous pages. The lack of abortion will increase the births (just look at demography of Romania during the communist period). I don't think it's a good thing to still increase the population of humans on earth, we are already too much. It is realistically impossible to stop sexual relationships so abortion is the best way to regulate the population of the world.

I do not understand why you are framing the discussion like this. It’s a great oversimplification to say it’s spiritual vs non spiritual (which I would imagine is a purposeful tactic with the implication being “religion stupid”). Why frame it as a dichotomy when it clearly isn’t? It’s a bit crass to say it’s a clump of cells but at some point it becomes something more no? So what exactly are you trying to say?

And then I find it amusing to suggest that abortion is the best way to regulate population (a pretty authoritarian concept btw). I don’t want to speak for you but it’s a little baffling how that would remotely be true unless your “clump of cells” extends to the point of birth, which, is totally cool for you to think but I suspect is not quite convincing to those like deceit...seems a little counter productive to suggest there’s utilitarian value to abortion when you also stake the claim that it’s an individual decision. Surely health education is a much more effective way of regulating the population which you seem to think is so important

 

[ManOfMany]

Yeah I suppose it wasn't great to frame whether abortion is right or wrong as simply a utilitarian concept. Your intrinsic moral beliefs are important but the problem is that they shouldn't be enough to infringe on the rights of pregnant women.

I do actually believe that a fetus has some intrinsic value simply by being a human life (disregarding everything about personhood). However, as this is a personal belief that I cannot justify imposing on others' rights, I am not going to impose this on women who are free to do what they want when it comes to their actual bodily autonomy. Anti-abortionists campaign could be seen through this viewpoint as similar to being a vegetarian and believing eating meat is wrong, but actually using government force to prevent others from eating meat.

Anyway, I agree that this thread is going nowhere. Increased sex education and birth control are the only things that work at reducing abortion while still respecting a woman's rights. Of course pregnant women do not take abortion lightly and no amount of liberal brainwashing will make them do so. It is a highly traumatic and emotional process to them most of all, and late-term abortions are usually only reserved for health complications to the mother and physical abnormalities. In 2015 only 1.3% of abortions in the U.S. were at > 21 weeks gestation, and abortion rates were actually decreasing from 2006 to 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6289084/

Thanks to feminism, the U.S. has actually made progress that should both liberals and conservatives happy.

 

[BP]

At what point does a fetus develop Midi-Chlorians? After that abortion is murder

8 Weeks

Idk if this is you being legit but if it is I agree with you. I personally believe that abortion should be legal up until the embryo becomes a fetus. At that point, it is a living human being. An Embryo is just a ball of flesh that is developing into a living being. While I don't think it is ethical or morally sound I'm okay with giving women a choice to terminate that development since it is not a human being yet. Its a nice compromise, in my opinion, but unfortunately people aren't really good at those nowadays.

 

[Apagogie]

Yea, animals are lives. I'm going to repeat this for the last time since clearly you cannot read once so ever. Human life, in my opinion, is inherently more valuable. In addition, you don't see us aborting animal babies. You may see us eating animals for food, but everyone acknowledges they are lives. A human fetus is still human, it has human DNA, it has its own unique genetic code, and it can develop into one of us.

Spermatozoides carried the dna which will allow them to make a human, are they human ? If you take a chromosome, do you have a human in your hand ?
"It can develop" is off-topic. The question is yes or no the bunch of cells which is the egg just fertilized can be considered such as a human. Not the baby, not what it will become after. The question is the egg fertilized in itself.
You think yes and it's spiritual point of view since it's not as developed as other forms of life you don't consider to be humans.

I do not understand why you are framing the discussion like this. It’s a great oversimplification to say it’s spiritual vs non spiritual (which I would imagine is a purposeful tactic with the implication being “religion stupid”). Why frame it as a dichotomy when it clearly isn’t? It’s a bit crass to say it’s a clump of cells but at some point it becomes something more no? So what exactly are you trying to say?

And then I find it amusing to suggest that abortion is the best way to regulate population (a pretty authoritarian concept btw). I don’t want to speak for you but it’s a little baffling how that would remotely be true unless your “clump of cells” extends to the point of birth, which, is totally cool for you to think but I suspect is not quite convincing to those like deceit...seems a little counter productive to suggest there’s utilitarian value to abortion when you also stake the claim that it’s an individual decision. Surely health education is a much more effective way of regulating the population which you seem to think is so important

It is basically a spiritual point of view and it is only in debating this that the debate could advance. If you are against abortion, it's because you think in doing abortion we are killing humans. Pro-choice don't think that since they think we are just removing cells of our body. Killing cells don't matter since we do that everyday. So a discussion about what is human life is the only way to maybe find a conclusion on this debate.

The problem is we have a different point of view. For pro-lifes, at the second where the egg is fertilized, we have a human. For pro-choices, this egg fertilized is not a human and the foetus has to develop sensibility, rational functions, which needs to have a brain, etc to be categorized such as a human. As explained in that post, these two point of views aren't equal. There is no rational reason to think that something which is less developed than other forms of life that you don't consider to be human is a human by itself. The only reason to justify it is a spiritual statement. You imagine the egg fertilized like a living baby with all their developed functions intellectually even if it's not the case.

I repeat myself but do you consider that an egg one second after being fertilized is a human ? If you answer no, you are already pro-choice.

And yeah, abortion is the best way to regulate the population of the world. The funniest thing is it prevents real babies to die. If the abortion was forbidden tomorrow, the population will increase drastically such as History shows. However, for a question of lack of resources, this is not possible in mid-term, even with the actual situation, to handle a society with so much people. If we don't apply a regulation on births (and it's done thanks to abortion, birth control in china exist thanks to abortion), a regulation will anyway exist. We have seen that in the past, the regulation is done by diseases or famines. If we don't want to see babies dying, it's actually better to kill cells than letting real babies born and then die due to our inability to manage our resources correctly. Managing our resources also mean to don't let more people being on earth to consume.

It's really something you should consider when you think about abortion. The choice to allow or disallow abortion has big consequences on the future .

 

[Celever]

JALMONT I disagree that there was any intellectual oneupmanship happening during that conversation. Kant and Kierkegaard is what our side was arguing the entire time; saying that was me framing the discussion.

The reason why it all mattered is because pro-lifers trying to masquerade as speaking in terms of science and the phenomenal world is why abortion is still illegal in some states. America prides itself on allegedly being a secular state but, as anti-abortion is by definition based in religion and spirituality and doesn't have a valid secular side to it, abortion being illegal is theocratic. By all means I support any state in America's right to legislate that it is a Christian theocracy and then they have every right to ban abortion, even if I disagree with it -- non-Christians can just move out of the state, there's 49 other ones. However, if America is truly a secular state, abortion should be legal by federal law.

 

[cookie]

i think you're disregarding the idea that some people believe in souls and mysticism. ill state for the record again just to not show bias, im pretty much just like joe biden in this issue (im pro-choice because in my opinion you shouldn't be able to enforce your values on anyone else, but in my own personal opinion i find abortion a killing of a soul in a sense and would never advocate for it; but i would never condemn someone for their choices). but i can easily empathize with pro-lifers who really believe that when someone is conceived, they have their own soul and they are trying to protect that individual who can't protect themselves. to call them sexually repressed nerds is just wildly immature. i think the idea of them being a bunch of women-haters is just pretty far from the truth. this post is just a gross generalization of how you view pro-lifers, it doesn't seem backed by any actual experience talking to them or empathizing with them. i feel comfortable saying this because ive been able to talk to a few people who do the march for life kind of things and when i ask them about their opinions on abortion they have and why they have them, in my experience, it always is due to their belief of "it's killing a soul" and they become very passionate and emotional. which is a pretty heavy thing if you do take your religious / spiritual beliefs seriously.

the idea that you can't be consciously misogynistic is laughable - everyone who's misogynistic, racist, transphobic or whatever does not think they have a problem, so they don't label themselves as such. my grandfather absolutely adored his daughter and wife. doesn't mean he didn't think they were lesser than him, and sure as fuck didn't stop him from clipping their wings and preventing their independence. but he can't hate women because he loved them, right??

i fully believe that some anti-abortionists are passionate and truly believe that there's a soul. what i'm saying is that is to ascribe a soul to a bunch of cells, despite there being absolutely no physical or scientific basis for it, and to use THIS as a reason to deny the rights of living, undeniably thinking and human citizens of society, is an implicit act indecency. it really doesn't matter what they "believe": it is what it is. i'm not even gonna touch the topic of how the venn diagram of anti-abortionists and those who want to limit government welfare to the poor is basically a circle. the hypocrisy of it being OK for a child to die of hunger but not in utero adds further credibility to the theory that restricting abortion is about seizing human rights rather than saving souls.

and i do not apologise for having nothing but utter contempt for anyone who believes this. not only is such a belief system is completely orthogonal to mine, but it's one that is completely shielded from criticism because it's someone's "strongly held belief". having unshakeable beliefs is a gross indulgence when it means women have to deal with the trauma of birthing and raising a child that they don't want. when the stakes are that high, i have no tolerance for blindness to reason.

it's a complete lack of empathy for people who do want to have sex without having to have children. and you're right, i've not personally spoken to these people, but i have to wonder if these same people were a bit more sexually liberated that they might be able to bridge that empathy gap.

 

[kd24]

the idea that you can't be consciously misogynistic is laughable - everyone who's misogynistic, racist, transphobic or whatever does not think they have a problem, so they don't label themselves as such. my grandfather absolutely adored his daughter and wife. doesn't mean he didn't think they were lesser than him, and sure as fuck didn't stop him from clipping their wings and preventing their independence. but he can't hate women because he loved them, right??

i fully believe that some anti-abortionists are passionate and truly believe that there's a soul. what i'm saying is that is to ascribe a soul to a bunch of cells, despite there being absolutely no physical or scientific basis for it, and to use THIS as a reason to deny the rights of living, undeniably thinking and human citizens of society, is an implicit act indecency. it really doesn't matter what they "believe": it is what it is. i'm not even gonna touch the topic of how the venn diagram of anti-abortionists and those who want to limit government welfare to the poor is basically a circle. the hypocrisy of it being OK for a child to die of hunger but not in utero adds further credibility to the theory that restricting abortion is about seizing human rights rather than saving souls.

and i do not apologise for having nothing but utter contempt for anyone who believes this. not only is such a belief system is completely orthogonal to mine, but it's one that is completely shielded from criticism because it's someone's "strongly held belief". having unshakeable beliefs is a gross indulgence when it means women have to deal with the trauma of birthing and raising a child that they don't want. when the stakes are that high, i have no tolerance for blindness to reason.

it's a complete lack of empathy for people who do want to have sex without having to have children. and you're right, i've not personally spoken to these people, but i have to wonder if these same people were a bit more sexually liberated that they might be able to bridge that empathy gap.

well i do agree that the republicans who fight tooth and nail against abortion and then try to take away social systems to those burdened with taking care of a family without a safety net are poisonous to society. we can touch that topic because it is absurd BUT its disingenuous to say that covers everyone who is anti-abortion. that just covers the bs you see on tv, not the real people you see day to day. it sounds like you're influenced by the bullshit artists of the gop/fox news/russian trolls online/etc...again this is just me speaking from experience but the people i know who are pro-life, they believe in funding more homeless shelters, welfare for the poor, support for families, volunteer at their local soup kitchens, etc. in fact pretty much anyone who says their pro-life due to a religious affiliation, well that religious text likely supports dividing wealth and giving to the poor from the rich.

the rest of your post is essentially just repeating "im right about my world-view and there's no possible way im off the ball". i think it was spot on what was said earlier, there's really no solution because the debate at its core is spiritual. i just think it's a copout to just go with "well these guys are sexually repressed women haters". it's like just a mean ad hominem. many different people have incredible spiritual and god experiences that shape their view of pregnancy and life at conception.

 

[JALMONT]

It is basically a spiritual point of view and it is only in debating this that the debate could advance. If you are against abortion, it's because you think in doing abortion we are killing humans. Pro-choice don't think that since they think we are just removing cells of our body. Killing cells don't matter since we do that everyday. So a discussion about what is human life is the only way to maybe find a conclusion on this debate.

The problem is we have a different point of view. For pro-lifes, at the second where the egg is fertilized, we have a human. For pro-choices, this egg fertilized is not a human and the foetus has to develop sensibility, rational functions, which needs to have a brain, etc to be categorized such as a human. As explained in that post, these two point of views aren't equal. There is no rational reason to think that something which is less developed than other forms of life that you don't consider to be human is a human by itself. The only reason to justify it is a spiritual statement. You imagine the egg fertilized like a living baby with all their developed functions intellectually even if it's not the case.

I repeat myself but do you consider that an egg one second after being fertilized is a human ? If you answer no, you are already pro-choice.

And yeah, abortion is the best way to regulate the population of the world. The funniest thing is it prevents real babies to die. If the abortion was forbidden tomorrow, the population will increase drastically such as History shows. However, for a question of lack of resources, this is not possible in mid-term, even with the actual situation, to handle a society with so much people. If we don't apply a regulation on births (and it's done thanks to abortion, birth control in china exist thanks to abortion), a regulation will anyway exist. We have seen that in the past, the regulation is done by diseases or famines. If we don't want to see babies dying, it's actually better to kill cells than letting real babies born and then die due to our inability to manage our resources correctly. Managing our resources also mean to don't let more people being on earth to consume.

It's really something you should consider when you think about abortion. The choice to allow or disallow abortion has big consequences on the future .

Again your framing of the issue seems to be a vast oversimplification and a tad disingenuous (and I’m not sure why you’re assuming what I think). Maybe you are too caught up in proving deceit wrong but i would like to think abortion takes can be much more nuanced, you can just look at the first page of this thread. You place a large amount of significance on differentiating between a “clump of cells” vs “human” so I’m asking you the opposite of what you keep attributing as the only pro life POV which is at what point is one “human”? I assume you agree that murder is bad (although I dunno what if it’s done in someone’s benefit???) so doesn’t that mean that there’s some line where the cells become human? Am I right in thinking that you believe that line to be birth? This is the distinction that confuses me. Clearly this is a black/white issue for you and yet at some point the black becomes white but at what point you don’t make clear (or maybe it doesn’t matter to you? But then that is quite confusing because shouldn’t it matter?). Of course I’m not up to date on the exact moments the brain is formed or when sensibility is developed so perhaps my understanding of this “moment” being in flux is flawed...I’m quite happy to be educated!

I am obviously not as intelligent as many of the great posters of this forum so my thoughts are pretty irrelevant but I do wonder what the difference in “extrinsic value” is between an unwanted fetus vs an unwanted child. Not quite sure attributing value to people is a slam dunk argument (Who decides “value”? What gives someone “value”?) but what do I know...

-
There is no reason to take anything you say regarding population control and abortion at face value without any evidence to suggest what you are saying is true. Birth rates have much more to do with economic factors and there’s no reason to believe that abortion becoming illegal (which is impossible anyways) would cause “drastic” population increase. And if we don’t want to see babies dying then perhaps we should ban birth altogether. “Prevents real babies from dying” is circular reasoning that wouldn’t convince a detractor in the first place so it’s a pretty useless thought exercise. I am not quite sure if you are suggesting abortion as the most effective kind of birth control (which is an extremist position that is doubtful to gain traction and also in my opinion unfair as it seems to leave the burden to women regarding safe sexual practices) or if you truly believe governments should regulate population via abortion which would seem to be the exact opposite attitude of supporting a women’s right to do what she wants with her body. You got a bit unintelligible towards the end so I’m not sure if you were saying China’s one child policy was a good policy or not but i would be a little concerned if you were...

when I think about the big problems humanity faces, I very much doubt abortion is one that is consequential as say climate change. This is not to say it is unimportant, but building it up as a kind of crisis of civilization is a bit silly I think (not to mention detracts from the more tangible issue of women’s rights).