Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 19609 times)

Ross812

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Move over KY
A rational pregnant woman's decision making might look like this:

Do I want a child? Yes/No

If not, what options do I have?

Adoption or Abortion

Adoption:

Pro's:
-It satisfies stahleyp's moral sensibility
-You may be able to get financial help from the adoptive parents

Cons:
-All the physical trauma pregnancy and birthing entails - Essentially giving up your autonomy and health to support someone else.
-Social stigma - employers, friends, family of an unplanned pregnant
-Social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption - This can be huge for someone pursuing a professional career.
-Financial costs not covered by adoptive parents, charity, or insurance.

Abortion:

Pros:
-It is private - no one will know of the pregnancy unless you share so no social stigma.
-There is less physical trauma than pregnancy/birth
-Cost less than $1000 in the first trimester

Cons:
-You offend stahleyp's moral sensibility

Thus far, everyone in the pro-life camp has focused on adding cons on with respect to getting an abortion. These have been through restricting access through timing (heartbeat bills) or availability (ER proximity or legality) and by adding social pressure (protesting abortion, religious angle, etc.).

If the woman does not share stahleyp's moral sensibility, you have to add to the pros of the alternative: adoption. Repealing Roe will force those who do not have the means to take a "medical vacation," to resort to something unsafe or to have a baby. I will say this again: add $10M to the pro side of having an adoption and abortion will disappear. I know that won't happen, but what about instead of adding cons to abortion, you work on making adoption more appealing. If those same dollars and effort that go into the current prolife movement went into promoting the virtues of giving someone else the gift of life with an adoptable baby, the social stigma will start to disappear and the rate of abortion will drop.  Add a little financial incentive too and it will drop further. The current course of action forces the poor into a decision that is either unsafe or hurts them further physically and financially.     



 
96% Fixed Income CDs, Muni, Corporate Debt - 4% SPX Options


Cigarbutt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
...
1) There is a condition called anencephaly. The research (from what I can find and please correct me if I'm wrong) seems to indicate the baby never has consciousness. They tend to be born and die within a few hours. However, I don't think many would say it's not human.

Following this thread for independent thought on human consciousness.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5093842/

Newborns born with severe limitations (like newborns who have no or very little brain tissue) are typical examples where there is typically a discussion with parents about palliative care, withholding and even withdrawing treatment.
Most newborns with anencephaly die within a few hours or days but can survive longer.
Where is the humanity?
Who's playing god here?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 09:38:29 AM by Cigarbutt »

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
A rational pregnant woman's decision making might look like this:

Do I want a child? Yes/No

If not, what options do I have?

Adoption or Abortion

Adoption:

Pro's:
-It satisfies stahleyp's moral sensibility
-You may be able to get financial help from the adoptive parents

Cons:
-All the physical trauma pregnancy and birthing entails - Essentially giving up your autonomy and health to support someone else.
-Social stigma - employers, friends, family of an unplanned pregnant
-Social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption - This can be huge for someone pursuing a professional career.
-Financial costs not covered by adoptive parents, charity, or insurance.

Abortion:

Pros:
-It is private - no one will know of the pregnancy unless you share so no social stigma.
-There is less physical trauma than pregnancy/birth
-Cost less than $1000 in the first trimester

Cons:
-You offend stahleyp's moral sensibility

Thus far, everyone in the pro-life camp has focused on adding cons on with respect to getting an abortion. These have been through restricting access through timing (heartbeat bills) or availability (ER proximity or legality) and by adding social pressure (protesting abortion, religious angle, etc.).

If the woman does not share stahleyp's moral sensibility, you have to add to the pros of the alternative: adoption. Repealing Roe will force those who do not have the means to take a "medical vacation," to resort to something unsafe or to have a baby. I will say this again: add $10M to the pro side of having an adoption and abortion will disappear. I know that won't happen, but what about instead of adding cons to abortion, you work on making adoption more appealing. If those same dollars and effort that go into the current prolife movement went into promoting the virtues of giving someone else the gift of life with an adoptable baby, the social stigma will start to disappear and the rate of abortion will drop.  Add a little financial incentive too and it will drop further. The current course of action forces the poor into a decision that is either unsafe or hurts them further physically and financially.   

Did you notice that none of your arguments are around the person being involuntary terminated? The person being harmed the most is being completely ignored in the decision making here.

As far as social stigma is concerned, why does that matter? I'm making a moral argument here - not an argument for convenience or social acceptance. I have no reason to believe the mother isn't terminating an innocent human life. Do you?

Sure there might be less physical trauma but I don't know about the emotional trauma. There are people who had an abortion and regret it deeply.

No one is forcing anyone into a medical vacation or anything! I believe its her body giving birth, yes? Did someone force her to get pregnant? I believe force is when someone else actually makes you to do something?

I agree that adoption should be more appealing.

On another note, do you feel that man should be required to pay child support even if he requested an abortion?

Cigar, thanks for the link. That's pretty interesting.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 09:56:36 AM by stahleyp »
Paul

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
Do the anti-abortionists here think that all women have and believe they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

wachtwoord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1423
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4788
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
akam| brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.

The only counter I have to that is if they know when they agree to have sex, that the terms are that the woman decides then it puts some onus on them to choose good partners as well.

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.
Paul

Ross812

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Move over KY
A rational pregnant woman's decision making might look like this:

Do I want a child? Yes/No

If not, what options do I have?

Adoption or Abortion

Adoption:

Pro's:
-It satisfies stahleyp's moral sensibility
-You may be able to get financial help from the adoptive parents

Cons:
-All the physical trauma pregnancy and birthing entails - Essentially giving up your autonomy and health to support someone else.
-Social stigma - employers, friends, family of an unplanned pregnant
-Social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption - This can be huge for someone pursuing a professional career.
-Financial costs not covered by adoptive parents, charity, or insurance.

Abortion:

Pros:
-It is private - no one will know of the pregnancy unless you share so no social stigma.
-There is less physical trauma than pregnancy/birth
-Cost less than $1000 in the first trimester

Cons:
-You offend stahleyp's moral sensibility

Thus far, everyone in the pro-life camp has focused on adding cons on with respect to getting an abortion. These have been through restricting access through timing (heartbeat bills) or availability (ER proximity or legality) and by adding social pressure (protesting abortion, religious angle, etc.).

If the woman does not share stahleyp's moral sensibility, you have to add to the pros of the alternative: adoption. Repealing Roe will force those who do not have the means to take a "medical vacation," to resort to something unsafe or to have a baby. I will say this again: add $10M to the pro side of having an adoption and abortion will disappear. I know that won't happen, but what about instead of adding cons to abortion, you work on making adoption more appealing. If those same dollars and effort that go into the current prolife movement went into promoting the virtues of giving someone else the gift of life with an adoptable baby, the social stigma will start to disappear and the rate of abortion will drop.  Add a little financial incentive too and it will drop further. The current course of action forces the poor into a decision that is either unsafe or hurts them further physically and financially.   

Did you notice that none of your arguments are around the person being involuntary terminated? The person being harmed the most is being completely ignored in the decision making here.

As far as social stigma is concerned, why does that matter? I'm making a moral argument here - not an argument for convenience or social acceptance. I have no reason to believe the mother isn't terminating an innocent human life. Do you?

Sure there might be less physical trauma but I don't know about the emotional trauma. There are people who had an abortion and regret it deeply.

No one is forcing anyone into a medical vacation or anything! I believe its her body giving birth, yes? Did someone force her to get pregnant? I believe force is when someone else actually makes you to do something?

I agree that adoption should be more appealing.

On another note, do you feel that man should be required to pay child support even if he requested an abortion?

Cigar, thanks for the link. That's pretty interesting.

It doesn't really matter what you and I believe. A pregnant woman can make the decision terminate the pregnancy regardless of legality either through a dangerous illegal method or visiting a place where the procedure is legal. This has been happening for 1000s of years.

Your moral argument is: the developing baby is a human and has rights no one has the right can infringe upon.

The other side of the argument is: a woman has autonomy over her body.

Lets use an analogy because people like those here:

Hindus believe cows are sacred. You can't eat beef, you can't kill a cow, you aren't even supposed to mess with a cow. They are sacred and you can be subject to capital punishment for killing a cow. Let's say you have a party and your Hindu friend brings a cow that runs into your house. He leaves, but this cow stays behind. It is wrecking your house, eating your food, ruffs you up some, and costs you money and there is absolutely no way to force this cow out of your house without killing it. You ask your Hindu buddy what to do and say you are going to have to kill it. He looks at you in shock and says with 100% sincerity it is a sin worthy of death if you do that.

He tells you to just deal with it: after nine months it will gore you up the butt, but then it will leave an you can give it to your neighbor. He warns you that he and most of the people you know are going to wonder what the hell is the matter with you though for refusing to take care of the cow though.     

Now it is a stupid analogy (and I probably offended some Indians, sorry), but you and I feel the same way about a cow as many people feel about a fetus. There are 100M people in India that would tell you tuff luck; cow's house now. You can argue that you have a right to remove (kill) the cow because it's your house and it doesn't belong there and you are really opposed to getting gored up the butt. Your feelings about this don't matter and you should have been more responsible in keeping the cow out of your house during that fun party. 

96% Fixed Income CDs, Muni, Corporate Debt - 4% SPX Options

Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1306
Quote
Lol @ "the baby faces death because his mom chose to have sex". That's true for anyone who ever lived, no matter the age they died.

Using agression to protect yourself does not violate the NAP.

I question whether you really try to understand the other point of view. For one you pretended to not understand the difference between something being inside of your body or part of it after my initial response in this thread. Your posts since have only increased my suspicion of that.

It violates the NAP of the baby. You completely ignore the fact that sex is a social contract and the woman knows the risks before engaging in it. You don;t understand basic biology. Please tell me what changes biologically (regarding the baby) one day before birth to the day after birth. Nothing....it is still entirely dependent upon the mother both before and after being born. It is its OWN being both before and after birth.

Quote
Lol @ "the baby faces death because his mom chose to have sex". That's true for anyone who ever lived, no matter the age they died.
uh no...One what you're saying is out of context and two people who are born cannot have their life taken by their parents for any reason. It's called murder or they die of natural causes. That unborn child isn't dying of natural causes.

You can't reconcile with basic biology. I'm not the one denying anything, or trying to find loopholes to legalize murder. You literally compared an unborn child to a pen being lodged in someones body and how that pen has no right to be there. That's laughable. If you actively and knowingly create another being (whether on purpose or on accident) you are responsible for that being. You don't get to determine it's demise.
Core: BRK | MSFT | GOOG | RTX | MSGS | TPL | WFC | USB | PNC | BAC | VZ | VNO | PCYO | PLNT | ESPO | HACK