abortion

Happy to think with you today. There are many factors involved in the abortion debate. In order to ban abortions entirely you have to sacrifice a lot more than most people think. For this reason, I am currently pro-choice. However, Tech advancements and a few other things could make this a non-issue. First of all, Abortion is distasteful. My opinion is that it should be done as little as possible. However, I acknowledge many benefits and see the necessity of it. Allow me to clarify the warring positions in this debate, To the best of my ability. It should be noted that in any respectable discussion of abortion one should list ways each problem could be solved. There are solutions to abortion that anti-abortion and pro-choice people are not discussing or investing in. The primary goal of anti-abortion people seems to be banning abortions without taking the steps that would make it possible for pro-choice people to accept that. They also fail to take steps that could reduce abortions as much as possible. Seeing as how the majority of society (in the US) agrees abortions should be legal, The priority for anti-abortion people should be to reduce the number and to improve technology to where abortion would not be necessary, Not to try to ban it against the will of the people. Abortion Positions 1. Women's Bodily Autonomy versus the Life of the Fetus Most people recognize that people have a right to decide what happens to their own body. There are many negative temporary effects of pregnancy, And several that are more permanent. To force a woman to carry a child to term would be to force both sets of negative effects on her. To terminate a fetus ranges from a non-issue if you draw the line any number of ways to infanticide if you draw the line at fertilization/conception. For myself, A woman's bodily autonomy takes precedent prior to brain activity at the very least. More on this in #2. 2. Person vs Life and where the lines are drawn. There is, In general, An arbitrary line drawn by most people as to where one becomes a 'person. ' This is often misconstrued as "when life begins, " but is in fact a distinct issue. Eggs and sperm are 'alive. ' A fertilized egg is 'alive. ' You can draw a distinction on the DNA level if you'd like and say human life begins at fertilization. This does not mean that one becomes a 'person' at conception. Your skin cells, Blood cells, Et cetera contain your DNA. That does not make them 'persons. ' Most people who give it thought will conclude that you become a 'person' around when brain activity begins. This does not mean conscious memories, But anything that changes the brain. You learned to babble, To crawl, To flop around et cetera long before you created long-term memories. I accept brain waves + brain changes as the line to where personhood begins. This is more important to me than when 'life' begins. I don't care about when my full DNA strain was made. I don't care about any individual part of me. What makes me 'me' is my brain. It is therefore not killing a 'person' to kill a fetus that has not yet undergone brain waves. My arbitrary line, Supported with this logic is at that point. Roughly 2-3 months into a pregnancy. However, I don't draw the line at there currently for other reasons I will give later. Let me expand. Most people agree that a person's death is when we experience brain death. Our full DNA still exists beyond this point, But brain activity has ceased. Why then do some take the opposite view on when personhood begins? That when the DNA exists and brain activity does not, One gains moral value? Few would call people who take their parents off life support after brain death to be 'murderers' yet so many believe allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy before 'personhood' begins is killing a person. In my view, This is illogical. To say a fetus has a 'small human body' is also an emotional appeal. Dead people have large human bodies. That does not give their bodies moral value. For life: Eggs and sperm can be said to be alive. Most people don't accept that when you masturbate, Have nocturnal emissions, Or have your period you are killing something by way of not fertilizing it. Every man is a mass murderer if this is your line. If you draw the line at fertilization/conception, You have to deal with the fact that many fertilized eggs never attach to the womb. This means the majority of "humans" to exist have died shortly after being 'created. ' This would be an issue far more important than abortion to you. Heartbeat is an insanely arbitrary line. We do not consider someone dead when their heart stops beating. This is an entirely emotional appeal based position. We can probably both agree nothing magical happens in the birth canal. 3. What constitutes abortions of convenience versus necessity? You state that you're ok with abortions for rape and health of the mother. If you're being consistent, Why do you say rape? Does the life of the child have less moral value to you if it is a rape baby? Or do you value the cost of the woman's mental health more? How about the physical and mental health issues that arise from being forced to carry a child you do not wish to carry? This is how all women feel, It does not require them to be raped to feel this way. Many women do carry their rapists' child. It is a matter of if the woman is prepared for that sacrifice and financially prepared for the child or not. If you agree with termination on the grounds of rape for mental health reasons, Why are the physical and mental problems associated with forced pregnancy not a problem for you? In some years over half of the women who got abortions stated they had used some form of contraception prior to having sex. Let's assume a 99% success rate for contraception. That means one out of every 100 chances you have to get pregnant will result in pregnancy. Some have higher chances, Some have lower. This means if we as a society improve contraception half of all abortions immediately go away, To the benefit of everyone. Citing contraception as if it is foolproof and everyone who got an abortion should be ashamed is a disastrously ill informed position. You cite abstinence. So you think all the people who can't find a partner should never have sex? That people who don't want kids should never have sex? You actively seek to diminish the lives of those who are living. Sex feels great and is essential for people to understand society and other people. It adds color to life. There is no reason, Particularly if you accept when personhood begins to be at brain activity, To deny yourself this. There is no reason everyone who exists should be forced to marry. Not everyone wants to be a mother. Not everyone wants their children to be put up for adoption. Many women want to have kids but only when they're ready. There's much more to discuss, But this is a good starting ground. I will address solutions in R2. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht