Post

So I've stayed out of the Abortion debate on here but I've seen a few points I'd like to address:

Disclaimers first! I consider myself pro-life with exceptions (rape and life of the mother). Those are my personal views. That said, if I were a politician I would probably campaign on the platform of not allowing abortion after the point of viability (somewhere around the 21st week). With all due respect, if you support killing a fetus near the end of a pregnancy, you are down right disgusting - in my view that's no difference than tossing a new born in a dumpster.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

I am confident, however, that at 24 weeks we're talking straight up murder. Babies have survived from 21 weeks, and potentially could durvive far earlier. They have a rudimentary brain far earlier too.

My current judgement, subject to evidence based review, is before 8 weeks is definitely fine. 8 to 16 weeks, there should be strong reasons and counselling to mum to make her aware of the balance of life vs choicr. After 16 weeks, unless mum will die, the imperative not to murder means abortion is unethical.

So that brings me to the point Ruinenlust brought up in regards to the "exceptions"... I think a surprisingly large number of poeple are pro-life with exceptions, at least in my community anyway. The extremes on the issue drown those in the middle out. For me, it's not so much about the woman being worth less than the fetus or vice versa. It's more about the fact that a women doesn't choose to be raped thus the pregnancy is forced. Outside of rape, a woman is not forced to have sex. As York Zionia points out, that's a choice that comes with potential consequence of pregnancy. Actions have consequences... but but but what about the 1% that get pregnant while on birth control????? Well as York Zionia illustrated with cruise ship example, odds are it wont happen but it can happen and everyone knows that.

When the life of the mother is in danger it should be her choice... I can't imagine the pain in having to make the choice...

At the end of the day, I am a realist and agree with the following points:

Uan aa Boa wrote:

The thing is that the abortion question isn't a cosy after dinner debate between intelligent and educated people, with clever examples, trolley problems and premises P1, P2, and P3. It's about children being born into circumstances where nobody has the capacity to care for them so they grow up with few chances to do anything except repeat the same sh1tty cycle...

I think most people could agree that abortions are bad in the sense that it would be better if fewer of them happened. As has been said, this is best achieved through there being fewer unwanted pregnancies. The idea that the state can deal with undesirable consequences by simplistically banning them is beyond infuriating. How can you get better outcomes through the return of backstreet and DIY abortions, or by ensuring children are born unwanted into circumstances social services may later need to remove them from?

Making abortion illegal won't stop them... thus the reason if I were a politician I would only call for a ban after the point of viability.
I generally stay out of the abortion debate as I feel morally conflicted from both ends being that I fall in the middle on this issue. Morally I think abortion is wrong. I also think it is immoral to take the anti-abortion stance yet do nothing to help those kids. I see it as a lose - lose situation until society itself makes major changes.

Lastly, I would like to comment on what sparked all the debate. The US Supreme Court did not make abortion illegal. Rather they left the issue up to the states. Personally I wish this would be the case with more issues especially on the economic side of things. Smaller federal government is better. The people at the local and state level know better what they need and prefer than casting a blanket over the entire country.