Abortion

[Butterfree]

The infant mortality rate has nothing to do with the likelihood of a zygote once conceived being successfully born. Infant mortality is when babies die under one year of age, after being born alive (that's what the "/1000 live births" means; it specifically excludes stillbirths and miscarriages before the figure is even calculated).

I still get your point about a zygote being more likely to turn into an actual baby than individual sperm and egg cells and all, but just I don't agree with how you find this relevant. Yeah, it's likely it would eventually become a baby if you did nothing more about it. Why, fundamentally, is the mere existence of this potential something sacred? The individual doesn't exist yet; there is no concrete somebody that you're erasing. It's unfair to the future potential individual (who is currently nonexistent) to not let them exist? Well, why is it not unfair to all the other potential future individuals that never became zygotes to not let them exist, just because one had previously become more likely to exist than the others? What the hell does it even mean to be unfair to somebody who doesn't exist?

 

[opaltiger]

Here is an interesting graph:

As you can see the likelihood of successful birth is actually relatively low, especially as you get older.

 

[Dinru]

“Men are traditionally given pretty much all the credit for making babies. We traditionally name babies after men, as if they were the ones who did it. Lineage, at least in our culture (the one being examined) has been traditionally passed through the father’s side. Our expressions regarding pregnancy hint at a model where men are the agents and women are passive—-planting a seed, bun in the oven, when you were a twinkle in your father’s eye. Even when we discovered that conception requires a cell from each parent, we assumed, incorrectly, that the egg sits there passively to be fertilized by the sperm, instead of viewing it as a merger that involves both cells going on a journey to meet and merge, which is biologically more accurate.
.
To say that something is a person as soon as conception happens is to claim, in essence, that men make babies by ejaculating. To say that it’s a person at birth is to say women make babies by being pregnant for 9 months, and that while the father kicked in some DNA, the person who actually made the baby—-provided the time, energy, calories, proteins—-was the mother. Which also happens to be true.”

(Source) Just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[Eloi]

(Source) Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I think this needs a name. "The longer a debate on abortion goes on, the likelihood of pro-life views being dismissed as reinforcement of Patriarchal ideals increases". How about "Eloi's Law of Feminist Analogies"?

 

[opaltiger]

I think this needs a name. "The longer a debate on abortion goes on, the likelihood of pro-life views being dismissed as reinforcement of Patriarchal ideals increases". How about "Eloi's Law of Feminist Analogies"?

It's funny how that happens when the majority of anti-choice arguments are misogynist. Where by funny I mean logical.

Also, please don't dismiss valid arguments with snark.

 

[Pwnemon]

Except I've explained my standpoint multiple times that the fact that a zygote (at least as far as abortion is concerned! All these lovely statistics about zygotes not implanting don't matter because it's before an abortion is even possible!) should be considered a baby not because I'm misogynist and patriarchal, but because if nothing outside influences the zygote, it will become a baby! for the same reason i would be pissed if someone slapped an eggo waffle out of my hand and onto the ground before i heated it- it's not technically edible /yet/, but it was made with the intention of being food! (Oh fricking lord I just know somebody is going to say i eat babies or something stupid, probably Eloi.)

 

[Tarvos]

Yes but women have 500 eggs. Do you think women will have ~500 babies? of course they're not all going to become zygotes

 

[Pwnemon]

Yes but women have 500 eggs. Do you think women will have ~500 babies? of course they're not all going to become zygotes

No, but all zygotes will become babies.

 

[Butterfree]

Except I've explained my standpoint multiple times that the fact that a zygote (at least as far as abortion is concerned! All these lovely statistics about zygotes not implanting don't matter because it's before an abortion is even possible!) should be considered a baby not because I'm misogynist and patriarchal, but because if nothing outside influences the zygote, it will become a baby! for the same reason i would be pissed if someone slapped an eggo waffle out of my hand and onto the ground before i heated it- it's not technically edible /yet/, but it was made with the intention of being food! (Oh fricking lord I just know somebody is going to say i eat babies or something stupid, probably Eloi.)

Slapping the waffle out of your hand is unfair to you, because you were planning to eat that waffle. However, you would probably also find it pretty weird to call it unfair to the waffle.

Abortion is more analogous to you holding an unheated waffle, except you don't like waffles and are only holding it because your friend gave it to you before you could refuse it, so you deliberately go and throw the waffle in the trash. Technically you could have heated it and then found somebody else to give it to, of course, but ultimately the fact is the waffle doesn't have any feelings and there are plenty of waffles for everyone else already, so why go through the trouble?

 

[Harlequin]

No, but all zygotes will become babies.

No, they won't. Implantation isn't some wonderful thing that protects the growing foetus. They can and do die after implantation! So many different things can happen after implantation to cause death!

 

[opaltiger]

No, but all zygotes will become babies.

It has been pointed out at least three times that this is not true. Here's a good debating tip: if something is not true, stop claiming it is true.

The graph I posted earlier shows it quite clearly. The rate of miscarriage is around 10% even for very young women (20s); it only goes up after that. What do you think miscarriage is? It's the zygote failing to become a baby! (Technically it isn't a zygote any more by that point, but we've been dispensing with annoying developmental jargon so far, and I see no need to introduce it now.)

Also, Pwnemon, you still haven't answered something Nyuu asked pages ago. If you think abortion is murder, why does the fact that a woman has been raped make murder acceptable?

 

[Music Dragon]

How likely it is for a zygote to become a human being is perfectly irrelevant; what matters is whether or not there is any reason to treat it as human simply because it will (might) eventually be one.

I can see only a handful of reasons why you would claim that it is wrong to destroy an unborn cluster of cells:

1. If you are saying that humans should be treated as already being that which they will eventually become: all human beings inevitably die; should we therefore treat all human beings as already dead? All children naturally grow into adults; should we therefore treat children as though they were adults?
   
2. If you are saying that it is wrong to interfere with that which is about to happen: is it wrong to cure people of diseases or rescue them from mortal danger?
   
3. If you are saying that an unborn cluster of cells has thoughts or feelings or dreams or hopes, and would therefore not want to die: you are wrong.
   
4. If you are saying that an unborn cluster of cells is sacred and/or has a soul: you are free to believe what you wish, but as an argument in this debate it holds no weight.
   
5. If you are saying that an unborn cluster of cells deserves to be given a chance to live life: why does it deserve such a chance any more than an unfertilized egg cell or a sperm cell? How can a non-existent person deserve something?

 

[Pwnemon]

It has been pointed out at least three times that this is not true. Here's a good debating tip: if something is not true, stop claiming it is true.

The graph I posted earlier shows it quite clearly. The rate of miscarriage is around 10% even for very young women (20s); it only goes up after that. What do you think miscarriage is? It's the zygote failing to become a baby! (Technically it isn't a zygote any more by that point, but we've been dispensing with annoying developmental jargon so far, and I see no need to introduce it now.)

Also, Pwnemon, you still haven't answered something Nyuu asked pages ago. If you think abortion is murder, why does the fact that a woman has been raped make murder acceptable?

It's pretty clear this argument is just going in circles. I say that a zygote will become a human being and should be treated as such, to which you say that it isn't true, in fact only 90% of them do, to which i clarify that i meant that without any outside interference it will become a human being, to which someone asks, "well than why is a zygote different from an egg or sperm cell," to which i say that a zygote will become a human being and should be treated as such...

Also I think I've been fairly convinced that abortion is also wrong in the case of rape.

How likely it is for a zygote to become a human being is perfectly irrelevant; what matters is whether or not there is any reason to treat it as human simply because it will (might) eventually be one.

I can see only a handful of reasons why you would claim that it is wrong to destroy an unborn cluster of cells:

1. If you are saying that an unborn cluster of cells deserves to be given a chance to live life: why does it deserve such a chance any more than an unfertilized egg cell or a sperm cell? How can a non-existent person deserve something?

this is my reasoning, see above.

 

[Music Dragon]

I see no reasoning. I see you saying that a zygote will eventually become a human being, but I see no explanation as to why this gives the zygote any rights.

 

[dolphinfish]

It's pretty clear this argument is just going in circles. I say that a zygote will become a human being and should be treated as such, to which you say that it isn't true, in fact only 90% of them do, to which i clarify that i meant that without any outside interference it will become a human being, to which someone asks, "well than why is a zygote different from an egg or sperm cell," to which i say that a zygote will become a human being and should be treated as such...
.

Uh, funny story. The mother existing can qualify as outside interference. Last I checked, it was difficult to be born without a mother, surrogate or otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Unborn babies are effectively parasites and women's bodies can abort effective parasites, especially if said parasite is not releasing the proper hormones to inform the mother that it's not just a parasite.

Also: morning after pill.

 

[Eloi]

All right here is the specific proposal for an Abortion Council type thingie:

PROS OF CHOICE & LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY​

We at Pros of Choice & Life Insurance Co. are a health insurance company that specializes in abortion cases. Depending on our assessment of your situation, we could cover the entire cost of your abortion.

What we do first is confirm that you are pregnant. Once we determine that, we schedule an appointment with a therapist that you are either currently using, or in your local area, either way the first appointment is completely covered by your insurance. Following that, your therapist will forward the case to our specialized council.

Our council is a volunteer led organization, and from applicants we pick a council of twelve to deliberate your case. Depending on the council's findings, you will either get completely insured or have other options become available to you (voluntary c-section, covering adoption costs, etc.)

Here are some factors that will determine if you are eligible for free abortion: having already undergone the full affects of a complete birth before this birth, whether you have tokophobia or not, the nature of the conception of the birth (formal reports of assault are not necessary, the therapist will determine prior history even in absence of legal information), the success rate of the child being born safely if the pregnancy is carried out, how late in term you are when you submit your case, whether you have determined you are able to raise a child, and whether you are financially able to support another child.

Thank you for choosing our insurance company.

-The Pros

 

[Harlequin]

All right here is the specific proposal for an Abortion Council type thingie:

PROS OF CHOICE & LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY​

We at Pros of Choice & Life Insurance Co. are a health insurance company that specializes in abortion cases. Depending on our assessment of your situation, we could cover the entire cost of your abortion.

What we do first is confirm that you are pregnant. Once we determine that, we schedule an appointment with a therapist that you are either currently using, or in your local area, either way the first appointment is completely covered by your insurance. Following that, your therapist will forward the case to our specialized council.

Our council is a volunteer led organization, and from applicants we pick a council of twelve to deliberate your case. Depending on the council's findings, you will either get completely insured or have other options become available to you (voluntary c-section, covering adoption costs, etc.)

Here are some factors that will determine if you are eligible for free abortion: having already undergone the full affects of a complete birth before this birth, whether you have tokophobia or not, the nature of the conception of the birth (formal reports of assault are not necessary, the therapist will determine prior history even in absence of legal information), the success rate of the child being born safely if the pregnancy is carried out, how late in term you are when you submit your case, whether you have determined you are able to raise a child, and whether you are financially able to support another child.

Thank you for choosing our insurance company.

-The Pros

So, wait, what? You have to have already given birth once? Or if you've given birth once you can't have an abortion? I don't...?

Also, what about countries with a healthcare system that covers abortions?

 

[Eloi]

So, wait, what? You have to have already given birth once? Or if you've given birth once you can't have an abortion? I don't...?

If you've already given birth once, the drastic and permanent changes to your body pregnancy does is not considered a factor (there are many others) in figuring whether you can have an abortion covered for free or not.

Also, what about countries with a healthcare system that covers abortions?

Than obviously they don't need the insurance company.

 

[Tailsy]

Oh good. I'm glad I can make my own choice to have an abortion without being looked down upon or refused by others because my reason 'isn't good enough' due to living in a country with universal healthcare, then!

If abortions are legal, everyone should be able to have one (accepting obvious limitations such as 'not possessing the internal organs required to become pregnant in the first place'). It seems rather simple to me.

 

[Eloi]

Oh good. I'm glad I can make my own choice to have an abortion without being looked down upon or refused by others because my reason 'isn't good enough' due to living in a country with universal healthcare, then!

If abortions are legal, everyone should be able to have one (accepting obvious limitations such as 'not possessing the internal organs required to become pregnant in the first place'). It seems rather simple to me.

Its not whether you can have one, its whether you can have one for free.