Abortion has many different aspects and many reasons, some clearly more important than others. But assuming the only reason is family planning, then thinking about when life truly starts becomes important. When studying philosophy and psychology in school, it's easy to form an opinion that life starts from birth, but when seeing it up close and personal on the ultrasound of your own future child, the thought that life hasn't truly begun yet, doesn't feel right any more. That's why I agreed with what @ThacoBell said.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that life starts from birth. That is not the point at all. The foetus is obviously alive. That does not make it sentient, or entitled to the same protection as a fully realized human being, like the potential mother. Or the potential siblings; in many cases the decision is made by a couple who already has kids and does not feel capable of emotionally or financially supporting another child while fulfilling the more important responsibilities to their existing children, which already have dreams, hopes and memories. 60% of abortions are for women, who already have at least one kid.
And as I mentioned before, the close and personal ultrasound of my kids did not change my mind on this.
I suspect difference in support for abortion rights between people who never saw an ultrasound of one of their own children and those who did is very negligible.
So last night it was revealed that Trump was insisting Sessions put himself back in charge of the Russia probe after recusing himself. Now this morning we get this:
What more ironclad proof is necessary on the subject of him wanting to use the office of the Attoney General to inoculate himself from the law itself?? The guy has basically confessed to obstructing justice on AT LEAST two or three occasions, yet we sit here pretending it's an open question.
@Ammar Let me clarify, I thought my post was clearer.
This is based on first hand discussion I've had with families, and is a trend I've seen locally.
A lot of people who are in the process of deciding if they want an abortion, will change their mind when they see their own ultrasound.
I also find it hilarious that my statement was IMMEIDALTELY pelted with "Where are your numbers" but when someone stated the opposite view as a "suspision", oh look, they got a like from one of the most "I demand numbers" people in the thread. Bias really is all pervasive. People must REALLY hate children.
What more ironclad proof is necessary on the subject of him wanting to use the office of the Attoney General to inoculate himself from the law itself?? The guy has basically confessed to obstructing justice on AT LEAST two or three occasions, yet we sit here pretending it's an open question.
If he has confessed to that crime, then when is the trial? Has anyone brought charges against him yet?
What's that? No one has charged him with anything at this time? Well, then...it is still an open question.
What Trump wants is irrelevant--there is no precedent for someone "unrecusing" themselves, so he is just wasting everyone's time with a pointless tweet.
Most murderers in France are Christians. Do we therefore stereotype Christians as violent or dangerous people? Of course not. That would be silly... and also against the Site Rules.
I'm not even sure if this is true, actually, because French prisons are not majority Christian but majority Muslim. Source?
@FinneousPJ "Oh yeah sound logic: I didn't want an abortion. Therefore no one should have an abortion."
I never said this.
That's correct. That's what I said...
So its YOUR logic then? Are you saying that you don't think people should get abortions because you don't want one?
@WarChiefZeke For the MOST part, posters in this thread are pretty good at at least giving reasons. Then there are the ones who make everything a sarcastic joke, making a productive and good faith discussion with them impossible.
Seems like they find an effect, but it is not large. 1.23 odds ratio for not aborting when having mandatory ultrasound. There are some potential confounders, including that mandatory ultrasound indicates stronger general social disapproval, but it seems like a reasonable estimate.
PS I think it is fine not to always show hard data, as long as this is clear and you do not make strong statements. I think both statements about not wanting abortions after ultrasound were pretty strong compared to my dissent: a lot or use of "if x, you feel..." which sort of implies everyone is affected, which also negated my personal experience.
Most murderers in France are Christians. Do we therefore stereotype Christians as violent or dangerous people? Of course not. That would be silly... and also against the Site Rules.
I'm not even sure if this is true, actually, because French prisons are not majority Christian but majority Muslim. Source?
I just looked it up. Apparently French prisoners are majority Muslim populations, despite the general French population being only 7-9% Muslim compared to over 60% Christian.
I assumed that because the French population was majority Christian, the prison population would match the demographics--an assumption I should have realized was flawed, considering my own country, the U.S., has a racial imbalance in the prison population. This doesn't necessarily mean that more murders in France are committed by Muslims than Christians, but I think that's a more reasonable assumption if the prison demographics are that imbalanced. The interesting thing is, the same source I'm using for the majority Muslim population, the Washington Post, also says that Muslims are a minority in the prison population of several other European countries.
I would still caution against stereotyping people as violent based upon their religion, of course.
I look at this list and I can't NOT notice that the countries with the highest homicide rates are either african countries or countries with a lot of african immigrants. Coincidence? Sure.
@Dev6 "You seem to be under the misimpression that an unborn fetus is a child. It's not. " You seem to be under the misimpression that an unborn fetus isn't a child. It is.
I totally understand why pro abortion people rally behind that so strongly. They HAVE to. THe alternative is that they have been calling for the murder of millions of children all this time. I doubt any person who isn't a low functioning sociopath would be able to handle that kind of realization. So you HAVE to constantly claim they are not human. The alternative is too terrible to consider.
I look at this list and I can't NOT notice that the countries with the highest homicide rates are either african countries or countries with a lot of african immigrants. Coincidence? Sure.
I don't see it at all.
Out of 54 African countries only 17 of them have over 1000 homicides. Places where there is a lot of civil unrest like South Sudan, DR Congo, South Africa and Uganda lead the list with other high populous countries like Nigeria. In fact, Nigeria, DR Congo, and South Africa make up 48% of the entire African murder count. 3 countries out of 54.
Now lets take your African immigrants comment. Places like Brazil, India and Mexico lead the count (followed by Nigeria and South Africa) of homicides and none of them scream African immigration to me. Brazil has a 7.61% black population (both India and Mexico however do not have their numbers listed).
If you want to take a look at just the rate (which in itself is dangerous due to some countries having low population count) El Salvador, Honduras and Venezuela lead followed by Jamaica and South Africa (and excluding countries like US Virgin Islands, Lesotho and Belize due to their low population counts 104,901, 2.2 M and 387,000 respectively). Once again, all three south American countries listed are not known for their immigration from African countries. Infact, according to Wikipedia, El Salvador has a black population of 0.13% and Honduras has a 2% black population and Venezuela has a 3.6% black population.
Looking just at count, the next countries listed after the ones already mentioned above include (in order) Russia (0%*), U.S.A (13.3%), Pakistan(0%*), Colombia (10.6%) and China(0%), all with over 10,000 murders.
*not listed in the ethnic groups, so may not be exactly 0.
Now if you take a country like Canada, that has a high immigration rate (roughly 20% of people foreign born are African decent with 6.3% of all Canadians having either an African or Caribbean decent) they sit at a 1.68 rate and a 604 count.
A 1.5% ethnic difference between Canada and Mexico stipulates to me, that just ethnicity does not have a solid correlation between a countries murder count and that other more pressing factors (drugs, poverty, civil unrest) play a larger factor in a countries murder count and rate.
@Dev6 "You seem to be under the misimpression that an unborn fetus is a child. It's not. " You seem to be under the misimpression that an unborn fetus isn't a child. It is.
I totally understand why pro abortion people rally behind that so strongly. They HAVE to. THe alternative is that they have been calling for the murder of millions of children all this time. I doubt any person who isn't a low functioning sociopath would be able to handle that kind of realization. So you HAVE to constantly claim they are not human. The alternative is too terrible to consider.
I think the extremes at both ends of the argument are very unsatisfactory. If you consider that a fetus has full human rights from conception that raises all sorts of issues about the ability of a mother (or even potential mother) to regulate her own life - including things like diet, exercise and work as well as obvious issues like alcohol and tobacco. I can't see how you could manage an equal society if a significant proportion of the population are unable to take decisions for themselves.
Ethicists have put forward the alternative approach of gradualism, i.e. that the fetus acquires more rights over time. There is still a problem in working out how to reflect that in law and custom, but in principle I think that is a better alternative than an all or nothing approach.
@Dev6 "You seem to be under the misimpression that an unborn fetus is a child. It's not. " You seem to be under the misimpression that an unborn fetus isn't a child. It is.
I totally understand why pro abortion people rally behind that so strongly. They HAVE to. THe alternative is that they have been calling for the murder of millions of children all this time. I doubt any person who isn't a low functioning sociopath would be able to handle that kind of realization. So you HAVE to constantly claim they are not human. The alternative is too terrible to consider.
So is a sperm a child too? At what point does a sperm become a child?
Since a sperm is child, men's sperm needs to be protected. Maybe we need mandatory ultrasounds before masturbation and outlaw condoms because they promote killing millions of unborn children.
I totally understand why pro abortion people rally behind that so strongly. They HAVE to. THe alternative is that they have been calling for the murder of millions of children all this time. I doubt any person who isn't a low functioning sociopath would be able to handle that kind of realization. So you HAVE to constantly claim they are not human. The alternative is too terrible to consider.
Pro-Choice. Not "pro-abortion". There's an incredible difference.
I addressed this earlier, and I think the most reliable way to draw a line on human life is to look at the bodies' natural process. Early on, there is a good chance that the incubation and growth of the embryo will fail. Almost 50% of successful inseminations are aborted by the body, due to the growing embryo not being viable. I think its fair, that if the fetus survives past this cut off point, then it should be considered human life. While I view ELECTIVE abortions as straight up murder, if one or both parties ARE goign to die, A choice HAS to be made of who to save. Doing nothing and losing both parent and child is far worse. That choice is up to the family though, and it breaks my heart that it ever happens.
@Grond0 " I can't see how you could manage an equal society if a significant proportion of the population are unable to take decisions for themselves."
Comments
And as I mentioned before, the close and personal ultrasound of my kids did not change my mind on this.
I suspect difference in support for abortion rights between people who never saw an ultrasound of one of their own children and those who did is very negligible.
What more ironclad proof is necessary on the subject of him wanting to use the office of the Attoney General to inoculate himself from the law itself?? The guy has basically confessed to obstructing justice on AT LEAST two or three occasions, yet we sit here pretending it's an open question.
@Ammar Let me clarify, I thought my post was clearer.
This is based on first hand discussion I've had with families, and is a trend I've seen locally.
A lot of people who are in the process of deciding if they want an abortion, will change their mind when they see their own ultrasound.
I also find it hilarious that my statement was IMMEIDALTELY pelted with "Where are your numbers" but when someone stated the opposite view as a "suspision", oh look, they got a like from one of the most "I demand numbers" people in the thread. Bias really is all pervasive. People must REALLY hate children.
I never said this.
What's that? No one has charged him with anything at this time? Well, then...it is still an open question.
What Trump wants is irrelevant--there is no precedent for someone "unrecusing" themselves, so he is just wasting everyone's time with a pointless tweet.
I'm not even sure if this is true, actually, because French prisons are not majority Christian but majority Muslim. Source?
@WarChiefZeke For the MOST part, posters in this thread are pretty good at at least giving reasons. Then there are the ones who make everything a sarcastic joke, making a productive and good faith discussion with them impossible.
Seems like they find an effect, but it is not large. 1.23 odds ratio for not aborting when having mandatory ultrasound. There are some potential confounders, including that mandatory ultrasound indicates stronger general social disapproval, but it seems like a reasonable estimate.
PS I think it is fine not to always show hard data, as long as this is clear and you do not make strong statements. I think both statements about not wanting abortions after ultrasound were pretty strong compared to my dissent: a lot or use of "if x, you feel..." which sort of implies everyone is affected, which also negated my personal experience.
I assumed that because the French population was majority Christian, the prison population would match the demographics--an assumption I should have realized was flawed, considering my own country, the U.S., has a racial imbalance in the prison population. This doesn't necessarily mean that more murders in France are committed by Muslims than Christians, but I think that's a more reasonable assumption if the prison demographics are that imbalanced. The interesting thing is, the same source I'm using for the majority Muslim population, the Washington Post, also says that Muslims are a minority in the prison population of several other European countries.
I would still caution against stereotyping people as violent based upon their religion, of course.
Brazil has one the highest murder rate in the world it is said, and they hardly have a muslim. Talking of murder rate BTW the US one is disastrous and it's not famous for having a large islamic population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
So
Coincidence? Sure.
Coincidence? or should we lock up people and should something be done? If you think we should lock them all up I'd argue that you are wrong.
He totally gave a pass to Roseanne's racist and antisemitic tweets that led to her firing.
Oh by the way, yesterday Trump Jr. retweeted at least one of Roseannes tweets.
You seem to be under the misimpression that an unborn fetus isn't a child. It is.
I totally understand why pro abortion people rally behind that so strongly. They HAVE to. THe alternative is that they have been calling for the murder of millions of children all this time. I doubt any person who isn't a low functioning sociopath would be able to handle that kind of realization. So you HAVE to constantly claim they are not human. The alternative is too terrible to consider.
Out of 54 African countries only 17 of them have over 1000 homicides. Places where there is a lot of civil unrest like South Sudan, DR Congo, South Africa and Uganda lead the list with other high populous countries like Nigeria. In fact, Nigeria, DR Congo, and South Africa make up 48% of the entire African murder count. 3 countries out of 54.
Now lets take your African immigrants comment. Places like Brazil, India and Mexico lead the count (followed by Nigeria and South Africa) of homicides and none of them scream African immigration to me. Brazil has a 7.61% black population (both India and Mexico however do not have their numbers listed).
If you want to take a look at just the rate (which in itself is dangerous due to some countries having low population count) El Salvador, Honduras and Venezuela lead followed by Jamaica and South Africa (and excluding countries like US Virgin Islands, Lesotho and Belize due to their low population counts 104,901, 2.2 M and 387,000 respectively). Once again, all three south American countries listed are not known for their immigration from African countries. Infact, according to Wikipedia, El Salvador has a black population of 0.13% and Honduras has a 2% black population and Venezuela has a 3.6% black population.
Looking just at count, the next countries listed after the ones already mentioned above include (in order) Russia (0%*), U.S.A (13.3%), Pakistan(0%*), Colombia (10.6%) and China(0%), all with over 10,000 murders.
*not listed in the ethnic groups, so may not be exactly 0.
Now if you take a country like Canada, that has a high immigration rate (roughly 20% of people foreign born are African decent with 6.3% of all Canadians having either an African or Caribbean decent) they sit at a 1.68 rate and a 604 count.
A 1.5% ethnic difference between Canada and Mexico stipulates to me, that just ethnicity does not have a solid correlation between a countries murder count and that other more pressing factors (drugs, poverty, civil unrest) play a larger factor in a countries murder count and rate.
No matter, even if the choice was between a mother and a child already born, I would choose the mother. It's only logical.
Ethicists have put forward the alternative approach of gradualism, i.e. that the fetus acquires more rights over time. There is still a problem in working out how to reflect that in law and custom, but in principle I think that is a better alternative than an all or nothing approach.
Since a sperm is child, men's sperm needs to be protected. Maybe we need mandatory ultrasounds before masturbation and outlaw condoms because they promote killing millions of unborn children.
I addressed this earlier, and I think the most reliable way to draw a line on human life is to look at the bodies' natural process. Early on, there is a good chance that the incubation and growth of the embryo will fail. Almost 50% of successful inseminations are aborted by the body, due to the growing embryo not being viable. I think its fair, that if the fetus survives past this cut off point, then it should be considered human life.
While I view ELECTIVE abortions as straight up murder, if one or both parties ARE goign to die, A choice HAS to be made of who to save. Doing nothing and losing both parent and child is far worse. That choice is up to the family though, and it breaks my heart that it ever happens.
@Grond0 " I can't see how you could manage an equal society if a significant proportion of the population are unable to take decisions for themselves."
You mean like the unborn children? Imagine that.
I dunno, you seem okay being the judge of whether a child is worthy of life.