Current Events > Would you describe yourself as generally pro life or pro choice?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The_Creep_2020 posted...

So do you believe women should carry the child of their rapist to term

Morally, yes.

and raise it themselves, or should they dump them onto the already overburdened adoption system?

This is a separate question. Notice particularly how it applies to children of non rapists just as well.

---

paerarru posted...

Being human life it also happens to be the child of that mother, or at least the surrogate child. Parents have moral obligations to their children.

That sounds like a super weak excuse to turn the people with uteruses into second class citizens and incubators. Don't force words like "mother" or "parent" on people who have no interest in being those things. Really interesting how these consequences only exist for women/afab people in your world.

And consider the moral obligation of not bringing a child into a world where they're unwanted or incapable of being cared for properly.

Pro choice 100%. The woman should be warned of the possible emotional repercussions though. I don't consider a fetus an actual human life, at least not at the point which they perform abortions. I don't think it's immoral at all.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

I am pro abortion

---

_Rinku_ posted...

That sounds like a super weak excuse to turn the people with uteruses into second class citizens and incubators. Don't force words like "mother" or "parent" on people who have no interest in being those things. Really interesting how these consequences only exist for women/afab people in your world.

No, that's just how you're interpreting motherhood. It's not words that are being "forced" upon people, it's life. No, I hold fathers equally accountable for the well being of their children, not one bit less.

And consider the moral obligation of not bringing a child into a world where they're unwanted or incapable of being cared for properly.

There is no such moral obligation, lest we devolve into this:

pkmnlord posted...

Absolutely pro-choice. Not all life is precious, nor does all life have to make it all the way to birth.

hockeybub89 posted...

Pro-choice, and I think the fetus is human life. Birth is a privilege and autonomy is absolute.

Sad_Face posted...

Pro life. It's human life from conception. I don't care at all about the "my body my rights" spiel.

That being said, one of the authors of Freakonomics, Steven Levitt, presented a breakthrough research paper in which they found a strong correlation between crime and abortion. The basic gist is that neglected and abused kids are more likely to fall into crime. Better access to abortion and other birth control options leads to a reduction of born kids raised in abusive homes which means less crime.

As a big believer in sacrifice the few (as long as it's not me) to save the many, if you can't take care of your kid for whatever reason, kill it. Abortion is legalized homicide so take one for the human race. This sounds morbid but people aren't equal in value. Women are the gatekeepers of humanity so they inherently are of higher worth than men. And boys need to be invested in so they can contribute and have a strong self worth (as the same with girls, of course). This is why it's imperative to have a community to help foster this growth so kids can reach that high level of value to better contribute back to society.

Mmm, a very... interesting position, whichever way you approach it. Who's to say whose life is more precious, whose life is more deserving, whose life is more privileged, whose life is more valuable, whose life is more expendable? Particularly who decides the criteria by which these questions will be answered??

Human rights are universal. Life is a human right. Birth is part of life.

---

Forcing a woman to have the baby of a rapist is beyond morally fucked up and so wrong.

---

this opinion is completely irrelevant to the actual issue though.

abortions are a necessary part of healthcare, and they always will be. making them illegal only means more deaths.

i wish i had put it that succinctly. i specifically mentioned counseling as well (or at least i think and hope i did) because from what i can tell - from what i've seen - it's not the easiest thing to go through, not to mention the stigma.
---

spikethedevil posted...

Forcing a woman to have the baby of a rapist is beyond morally fucked up and so wrong.

How about "forcing" the rapist to be accountable for the well being of that child? Genuinely curious question. Hint: there is a right answer to that question, but I wonder if you'll get it right, or even if you'll get it for the right reasons...

---

vehemently pro-choice and I would even say pro-abortion in the presence of pro-lifers who say stupid bullshit like "bUt iT KiLLiNg BaBiEs, NoT aBoUt ChOiCe."

---

The hell are you going on about? The woman shouldn't ever be forced to have the child in the first place so all the rapist hast to do is rot in prison. If she does have the child then part of his sentence should be payments to her via a the courts so she has to have no contact with him. So forcing a woman to have a child of rape is morally wrong and fuck up still stands.

---

Fluttershy posted...

this opinion is completely irrelevant to the actual issue though.

abortions are a necessary part of healthcare, and they always will be. making them illegal only means more deaths.

i wish i had put it that succinctly. i specifically mentioned counseling as well (or at least i think and hope i did) because from what i can tell - from what i've seen - it's not the easiest thing to go through, not to mention the stigma.

yeah people get all bogged down with these moral questions, but they're really just a distraction from the actual issue. they don't actually have any relevance in real life

---

The_Creep_2020 posted...

I thought they became limbo dancers?

that's the catholic church, i dont think all denominations of christianity believe in purgatory

---

averagejoel posted...

yeah people get all bogged down with these moral questions, but they're really just a distraction from the actual issue. they don't actually have any relevance in real life

Like all moral questions, if we don't bother with the moral foundation, then why bother with the legal and social ramifications at all? Very honest question.

spikethedevil posted...

The hell are you going on about? The woman shouldn't ever be forced to have the child in the first place so all the rapist hast to do is rot in prison. If she does have the child then part of his sentence should be payments to her via a the courts so she has to have no contact with him. So forcing a woman to have a child of rape is morally wrong and fuck up still stands.

Just as the rapist is the father and therefore responsible for the child's well being, so is the woman the mother, and also responsible for the child's well being. Starting with their birth.

---

Well if she makes the choice of not having it then birth isn't an issue and you are literally saying that a rapist should have say in if she keeps the child or not aren't you? Fuck it you are clearly shit posting and I'm done with you.

---

paerarru posted...

Like all moral questions, if we don't bother with the moral foundation, then why bother with the legal and social ramifications at all? Very honest question.

because the related moral issues here have no bearing on what should happen legally or socially. it's 100% an issue of pragmatism: abortion is part of healthcare. it is necessary, and it will always be necessary. if it's safe and legal, people can get one when it's needed. making it illegal does not reduce the number of abortions; it only increases the number of people who are killed or seriously injured by DIY abortions.

---

Like all moral questions, if we don't bother with the moral foundation, then why bother with the legal and social ramifications at all? Very honest question.

morality is informed by values, and those are subjective. what is morally sound to one person may not be to another. blood transfusion and organ donation are amoral to some.

this is a subject that you try and approach ethically, instead. damage, loss of life, and harm to quality of life are things you can more or less objectively measure. you try and answer the question in a way that recognizes harm you can remove from the equation, and you do that.
---

I have some moral qualms about it, but it's not my place to legislate morality.
---

spikethedevil posted...

Well if she makes the choice of not having it then birth isn't an issue and you are literally saying that a rapist should have say in if she keeps the child or not aren't you?

The rapist doesn't have a "say" in whether she should have the child or not, where did you get that from? Human beings don't have a "say" in moral matters.

That child, that human being has a right to be born, and that birth is primarily the responsibility of the mother, but it is also the responsibility of the father, because parents are responsible for their children.

averagejoel posted...

because the related moral issues here have no bearing on what should happen legally or socially. it's 100% an issue of pragmatism

The moral issues are precisely the question of what should happen. All practical concerns refer to moral concerns. What's practical is only practical in reference to an ideal, a goal. Without morality, there is no such. If we don't have the moral concerns then we don't have practical concerns either. You're using moral concerns the same as I. The only difference is that you call yours pragmatism while you call mine morality. But behind your pragmatism there is a morality. I'm sure you see that.

Fluttershy posted...

morality is informed by values, and those are subjective. what is morally sound to one person may not be to another. blood transfusion and organ donation are amoral to some.

this is a subject that you try and approach ethically, instead. damage, loss of life, and harm to quality of life are things you can more or less objectively measure. you try and answer the question in a way that recognizes harm you can remove from the equation, and you do that.

Ethical, practical, they're informed by a morality. If values are subjective, then it doesn't matter which values we use. Therefore there is no right answer to this or any other such question. Why should I care about damage, loss of life, and harm to quality of life? Why should anyone care? This is a morality behind your ethical concerns, you see.

---

The "both" option.
It sucks that a baby never gets to be born, but you cannot deny the body autonomy of the mother.

I would describe myself as pro abortion

---

Conflict posted...

I love how you manage to take an anti-abortion stance while also literally being in favor of eugenics and actual fucking murder. I wish you had any idea how batshit insane you sound

a guy who is still convinced pizzagate is a thing is also okay with killing children. very surprising!

---

Sad_Face posted...

That being said, one of the authors of Freakonomics, Steven Levitt, presented a breakthrough research paper in which they found a strong correlation between crime and abortion. The basic gist is that neglected and abused kids are more likely to fall into crime. Better access to abortion and other birth control options leads to a reduction of born kids raised in abusive homes which means less crime.

That's an interesting study, but it's marred into ambiguity by correlating to a decrease in atmospheric lead via regular gas bans.

Babies aren't even people. They're little balls of meat with kinetic potential, and only protected by a thin veneer of Oxycontin. You aren't killing a human. You're excising a tumor.

---

I'm her choice.

---

paerarru posted...

The moral issues are precisely the question of what should happen.

no they're not. the questions of "is a fetus a human?" and "is it okay to kill a human that hasn't been born yet?" has absolutely no bearing on what should happen legally or socially.

practical concerns refer to moral concerns. What's practical is only practical in reference to an ideal, a goal. Without morality, there is no such. If we don't have the moral concerns then we don't have practical concerns either.

this line of reasoning seems like it's wrong but I honestly do not care enough to address it.

You're using moral concerns the same as I. The only difference is that you call yours pragmatism while you call mine morality. But behind your pragmatism there is a morality. I'm sure you see that.

the moral questions that people are debating here are things like "is a fetus a human?" and "is killing a fetus the same as murder?"

practically speaking, neither question has any relevance to whether or not people should have access to safe abortions.

---

averagejoel posted...

no they're not. the questions of "is a fetus a human?" and "is it okay to kill a human that hasn't been born yet?" has absolutely no bearing on what should happen legally or socially.

What should happen is ultimately a moral question.

the moral questions that people are debating here are things like "is a fetus a human?" and "is killing a fetus the same as murder?"

practically speaking, neither question has any relevance to whether or not people should have access to safe abortions.

Yes, practically speaking they don't. But the questions are still relevant to the issue of abortion in general. There just happen to be many other factors that are also relevant to the particular issue of whether or not people should have access to safe abortions. The fact that people should have access doesn't mean that people should have abortions in the first place. Both are questions of should, and therefore questions which ultimately refer to moral concerns.

---

averagejoel posted...

because the related moral issues here have no bearing on what should happen legally or socially. it's 100% an issue of pragmatism: abortion is part of healthcare. it is necessary, and it will always be necessary. if it's safe and legal, people can get one when it's needed. making it illegal does not reduce the number of abortions; it only increases the number of people who are killed or seriously injured by DIY abortions.

This is an insane take.

---

paerarru posted...

Yes, practically speaking they don't.

thank you, I'm glad we agree.

---

averagejoel posted...

thank you, I'm glad we agree.

Well, I never had any doubt that we did in this respect, I'm glad you see it now as well...

---

Most people don't even care about their fellow man. Fetuses aren't more special
---

MutantJohn posted...

Most people don't even care about their fellow man. Fetuses aren't more special

good point, it seems like to some people , fetuses are more important than their fellow man.

---

Which one means the lady can decide? That one.

---

DoubleOSnake posted...

good point, it seems like to some people , fetuses are more important than their fellow man.

The psychology is actually pretty simple.

Fetuses are a blank slate, so to speak.

Most people are simply "bad actors" or people who "make bad choices and deserve what they get". That's why there's a lack of compassion for people.

Whereas a fetus has committed no slight against anyone so it's unjust to claim that it deserves death.

---

Body autonomy always wins.
You throw a party at your house. Some naked guy is in your bathtub the next morning. Are you allowed to tell him to leave?

paerarru posted...

Mmm, a very... interesting position, whichever way you approach it. Who's to say whose life is more precious, whose life is more deserving, whose life is more privileged, whose life is more valuable, whose life is more expendable? Particularly who decides the criteria by which these questions will be answered??

Human rights are universal. Life is a human right. Birth is part of life.

I agree that human rights are universal but I recognize there forces out there who would impose their own will and there will always be a struggle for power between different tribes.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12659&nbsp
Here is an email of Hillary Clinton's that talks about the motivations behind Frances' (and subsequently the US') "liberation" of Libya. The reason why is that Libya intended to create a new currency that would have challenged France's financial influence in the French speaking countries and Ghaddafi had a grand vision of uniting Africa under this currency. Due to his own oil production, this would have been a competitor to the Petrodollar, the US dollar.

He had to go.

The reason why I say such heartless things is because I recognize that these types of decisions are made and influence our lives. In the above case, it's to protect the value of the US dollar, our country's sovereignty and influence on the world. If you think this is wrong, if you want to fight back against this and make a safer, fairer world for all, there is a way. It's through blockchain technology.

---

Lmao no ones buying your shit here either joe take a hint

---

Pro-choice, always.
---

Joe's poorly formed argument is better described in this 1971 treatise which makes a case for abortion while concluding it is a human life from the perspective of bodily autonomy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

---

ssjevot posted...

Joe's poorly formed argument is better described in this 1971 treatise which makes a case for abortion while concluding it is a human life from the perspective of bodily autonomy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

My button hypothetical really isn't that different than the mix of the window and violinist hypothetical.

Either way it's a valid hypothetical to consider, even if he takes his conclusions down a different path. So thank you for linking it.

---

Because it was for some reason flagged and moderated, here is a restatement of my proof against Fluttershy, with all negative tone/connotation removed:

Here are FlutterShy's premises, they are free to object to them if they believe they are false.

Premises:

1. Litigation will not mitigate humans from engaging in persistent human behavior.
2. The ethical thing to do when you can't change a behavior is assist the person engaging in the behavior so that the person engaging in the behavior can to do it safely.

Now, Here is a true statement:

1. Parents beating their children is a persistent human behavior

Given these 3 premises we can with sound logic conclude:

1. Litigation will not mitigate parents from beating their children, and the ethical thing to do is to assist the parents in abusing their children so that the parents can do it safely.

This statement is obviously false, and in formal logic if you have a conclusion that was derived from sound logic that is false, then one or more of the premises is false.

Because we know the 3rd premise is a true statement, that means that one or both of Fluttershy's premises are false. So unless Fluttershy rejects one or more of those premises they have logically been proven wrong, which is not in keeping with their claim of valuing reason.

---

Abortion can be taken off the table as soon as we figure out how to incubate every single fertilized egg outside of a woman. I'd even take the option of women who don't want kids can turn over their whole uterus and fetus to a man or trans woman or woman who has been unable to carry to term. But to claim that, because sexual intercourse resulted in a fertilized egg, the woman has to allow a life to live in her body, off of her body, change the physical make-up of her body, change her outward appearance forever... Just shows how few things a pro lifer actually considers about gestation. I still have that dark line of pigment on my lower abdomen. My nose is still wider. My milk ducts still have issues. From 10 years ago. I'm not even talking about the inability for all of us to "snap back."

In short, I'm for banning abortion when we can make the men who knocked us up carry to term if we choose not to

---

GregShmedley posted...

I'm pro-choice, but if my girlfriend were to get pregnant, I'd want to keep it.

why?

---

joe40001 posted...

2. The ethical thing to do when you can't change a behavior is assist the person engaging in the behavior so that the person engaging in the behavior can to do it safely

This is the trick premise I'd say. It's not so much that you're assisting the person to do whatever they want, as you are minimizing the damage they cause. This is my view of legalized abortion.


---

paerarru posted...

This is the trick premise I'd say. It's not so much that you're assisting the person to do whatever they want, as you are minimizing the damage they cause. This is my view of legalized abortion.

And that's a very good point. My including the phrase "assisting" (even if I intended it in the context of safety) might have snuck in something that wasn't entirely fair to FlutterShy's argument.

If we were to revise it to simply "make safe for the person to engage in the behavior" my counterpoint to the argument would be: We still prosecute and try to stop those who would beat their children. Even if it was "0 assistance" but literally just made it safe for the child beater I'm quite confident people would be against it.

---

CE is ok with killing babies apparently

---

MFBKBass5 posted...

CE is ok with killing babies apparently

To be fair in some extreme Trolly problems I could understand the argument.

"Kill one baby or this nuke goes off killing millions, there is no doubt in your mind about any of these parameters"

In general killing babies is the wrong answer. (Though this discussion only relates to those who assume a fetus is effectively a baby)

---

MFBKBass5 posted...

CE is ok with killing babies apparently

Yeah, it's great that they understand how important it is to be able to have a choice.

---