7
8

Views on Abortion (self.Conservative)

TheSupremeFriend が 投稿

I assume just about everyone here considers themselves to be "pro-life", but I've come to realize how many different things that can mean. Are you against all abortions? Exceptions for incest, rape, the safety of the mother? If there are exceptions, how long can you wait before the procedure becomes illegitimate? Does life begin at conception?

全 24 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Trussed_Up [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

My argument rests on one assumption. All human beings have value, and nobody deserves to be murdered.

From there, abortion becomes the simplest of issues really. There is no good way to define human beings beyond "one who has been conceived". Seriously, no other method of definition I've ever heard has not rested on arbitrary and dangerous artificial creations of convenience. Is it the heart? What about people getting a heart replacement? Is it viability? What about people hooked up to life support? Is it intelligence? What about people with severe mental deficiencies which make them technically no more intelligent than some animals?

So. The lives of human beings start at conception. Murdering human beings is wrong. Abortion should be banned outright. The only "exception" is in the case where having the child will threaten the mother's life. In such a case, an abortion essentially becomes self defense. The idea of self defense against a baby is wholly, unpalatable, but still the correct application of the idea in this scenario where we define murder as the killing of another human being without valid excuse (wikipedia).

Other exceptions people want to have like rape and incest are based entirely on feelings. Rape is a horrendous crime. As conservatives, I think we can all agree that in the worst cases of rape the laws on the books should be even tougher on these horrendous criminals. That being said, you don't get to murder babies because you got raped. The baby you now carry due to rape is not responsible for the crime, therefore is not deserving of death. Same scenario with incest.

Some liberals recently have expressed the desire to make sure they can always abort disabled people. This is such depraved morality it's kind of beyond belief. No such exception should ever be made, unless we want to open up the killing of ALL disabled people. They're disabled so therefore they deserve to die? What? This goes back to my other point about how dangerous some of these exceptions can be.

Every time, without fail, human beings attempt to rearrange the definition of "human life" to fit their desires, extreme failings of morality ensue. Abortion is a perfect example.

[–]brainfreeze91 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

This is the strongest upvote I've given in a while. You explained my pro-life stance in a superb way. The only argument that the pro-choice side can validly make against this is attacking the personhood of the fetus. And there's no valid scientific or philosophical reason why the fetus isn't a person. The SLED acronym applies. Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency are the only differences between a fetus and a toddler. None of these differences cause a person to cease being a person.

Without appealing to the personhood of the fetus, the pro-choice camp will attack from all sides in a multitude of inferior ways.

They'll argue about the mother's freedom to choose (invalid if a person's life is involved).

They'll bring up that abortion would be better for the mother economically (murdering half of our population would create jobs, what's the difference?)

They think that the pro-life crowd only care about a baby being born and drop that concern once the baby is born (blatantly false)

They label pro-lifers as religious extremists (plenty of secular pro-lifers, plus that's an ad hominem attack anyway)

They're ignorant of the position and they're apathetic (this is the worst of it IMO. It's hard to convince someone who just doesn't care.)

[–]GabrielFromTX [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No such exception should ever be made, unless we want to open up the killing of ALL disabled people

Agreed, they would never advocate the killing of all disabled people. Those people are visible, they laugh and cry. If you don't have the conviction for openly killing a disabled person, you are the biggest of cowards for advocating killing disabled fetuses. That would happen behind closed doors. You would never hear the screams. How convenient.

[–]DEYoungRepublicans [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Let's pass the Life At Conception Act.

[–]southtexasman [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Does the "Life at Conception Act" allow exceptions for rape?

To answer the question OP, I'm against abortions in all cases, I believe life starts at conception, but I don't have a problem with birth control

[–]DEYoungRepublicans [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The question you should be asking: Is it the child's fault? A double wrong doesn't make the situation right, abortion is Murder. See also Pro-Life Answer to the Rape Question

Secondly, Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions

[–]Racheakt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I am iffy on the "rape" abortion, though I am sympathetic to the situation.

I think life begins at conception, and a rape exemption to me seems to be applying punishment to the child for the sins of the father. Almost like sending the children of a thief to reform school just because of what dad did.

I am however fine with a "life of the mother" rule. I justify that that because we allow (and I support) people to use lethal force in defense of their life or bodily harm, and if put in a situation where carrying to term will kill or maim the mother it is more or less self defense. I stress here I am talking the physical well beaning here.

[–]theFinisher4Ever [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I am pro-life with almost no exceptions. The only exception I have is for life of the mother. If the doctor can only save one or the other, thats actually a medical decision.

[–]GabrielFromTX [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Agreed. I've been called a lot of names for that position. I don't care. I'm sure you have been to. You're not alone.

[–]AM_Kylearan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I would suppose my position is similar, but it's more like "You have two patients, do everything you can to save both."

An emergency C-section may at least give both Mom and baby a chance ... I only pray I'll never have to deal with this situation, and I hope no one else does.

[–]theFinisher4Ever [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And what's insane is that left is waaay more extreme on this topic: https://youtu.be/IHrihwWJv8o

[–]oboboy14 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Legally, I think it must be pretty black and white. Either the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person under the 14th amendment, or it isn't until they're born. The problem is defining what a "person" in this context is. Defining it this way makes personship dependent on an event, rather than on time. So a prematurely born baby may become a "person" sooner than another baby, which also seems you be inherently unequal.

Additionally, does the fetus become a child when they are "alive?" This would mean we without need to have a clear understanding of when death occurs (which we do), and then apply that standard in the reverse to the fetus.

Personally, I believe that line begins at conception. I do believe there ought to be exceptions from abortion in cases of rape and if there would be serious harm to the mother. I believe this way because I think that people should be responsible for their actions, and the consequences of sex is the creation of human life.

If you are not willing or able to care for the child, putting them for adoption should always be a choice. Additionally, in instances of rape, the rapist should not be allowed rights as a parent, and ought to have their genitalia removed.

[–]GabrielFromTX [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

My fear about abortion is that the person who was going to cure cancer, solve world hunger, invent nuclear fission, whatever, already came and was aborted. Once there is a potential for a human life (i.e. conception) there is human life as far as I'm concerned.

Abortion is an absurdly selfish act. (And not to pick on women, it is also absurdly selfish when a man does not take responsibility for his actions.) It is not only selfish because it puts the convenience of the mother (and father, they benefit too) ahead of the life of the potential child, it is selfish because they rob the world of a human being that may accomplish unbelievable things. Anyone can be great. Everyone deserves a chance to.

[–]brainfreeze91 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

There's also plenty of reasons to believe that the fetus is not a potential human life, but an actual human life. I get where you're coming from, but there's not that many differences between a fetus and a newborn. Any line other than conception could be considered arbitrary.

I definitely agree in the millions that have been aborted, we've probably lost a lot of great people. It's a very selfish act, and I'm surprised the Left doesn't see that.

[–]GabrielFromTX [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Good point. I'm sure at some point science will be able to completely develop a child from conception to birth in artificial means. Not like a test tube baby but something like moving a fetus from the mother to an artificial unit. (Ok maybe that's still very far away but hear me out.)

At that point isn't the baby viable? Viability is dependent on our medical advances. What other human right is dependent on scientific advancement?

[–]brainfreeze91 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

In addition, why should viability be a trait that determines whether we are human or not? A man with down syndrome or a man with a disability that leaves him bedridden wouldn't be considered viable, and would be dependent on the care of others to survive. Are they any less human? A newborn requires nurturing and food from their parents, as they can't gather food or survive on their own. Are they any less human?

[–]houinatorConstitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The phrase "life begins at conception" is somewhat ambiguous, since technically, a sperm and an egg are both "alive". The life of a unique human organism does begin shortly after conception though (in the case of twins, sometimes the egg doesn't split for up to a week or so), which is what people generally mean with that statement. And barring some people who have been misinformed by pro-abortion propaganda, nobody seriously debates this as scientific fact. The legal dodge that Roe v Wade employed and has subsequently been popularized, is that while an unborn child is alive, it doesn't technically become a "person" in the eyes of the Constitution until after birth. However, the US government has a pretty terrible track record when it comes to denying people full personhood, and this is a shameful continuation of that legacy.

Protect innocent human life from conception onward is my personal position, but from a legal perspective i'd be willing to extend it to the earliest points where fetal brain activity begins (8 weeks or so). It has a certain synergy with our legal definition of death, which is when brain activity is no longer detectable (even though some cells can remain alive for over 24 hours afterwords).

Life of the mother exceptions, yes. On a somewhat similar note, life of another unborn child in the case of conjoined twins, when they cannot survive together, but one has a chance of surviving if they are separated.

Rape/incest, no. If you want to kill someone is this scenario, my vote is for the rapist.

Also, I would allow exceptions in the case where the unborn child has a terminal illness that makes it unlikely they will survive and causes them suffering, where the killing is done for the child's sake. This would have to be an extremely regulated process with lots of oversight, on par with states that have enacted laws allowing medically assisted suicide for people after they are born.

[–]Racheakt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The phrase "life begins at conception" is somewhat ambiguous, since technically, a sperm and an egg are both "alive"

They are part of the mother/father preconception, while living cells, not life themselves. That is they have the same DNA as the parents. At conception new uniquely identifiable DNA is formed, thus a new life. This is how I have come to look at it.

[–]gizayabasuTrump Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Abortion's a difficult topic for me. I want to say I'm a conservative, but in practice, I actually tend to be a bit more moderate. While I hold true the principle that life starts at conception, I'm between a rock and a hard place when it comes to rape. If it's the life of the mother, then yes, an abortion is fine. If it's incest, it was consensual, so you take responsibility. If the child has chance of deformity or otherwise undue difficulty in birth, then abortion should be fine too.

Rape is where it gets complicated. I think the child has a right to live, but I'm also sympathetic to the mother who may have to relive the horrors as a result of carrying/rearing the child. My solution is just the morning after pill (which I think should also be forbidden in all other circumstances - contraception should either be abstinence or pre-fertilization).

I'm a bit wet behind the ears with this issue since I previously (apathetically) took the liberal point of view. I'm still learning and trying to find where I am with this, since it's not something that has ever impacted me personally, so I'm still kind of uncertain where I stand. Would like any advice or guidance on this if anyone has insight.