FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The dilemma for me is a simple question with no simple answer, at what point does a human in early development have rights?" This is indeed at the core/crux of it. The pro-life position is that moral value is intrinsic to being a human lifeform, so as soon as there is a new, genetically distinct human organism it has a moral right to life and a moral right not to be intentionally killed/destroyed, and that it doesn't gain moral worth by becoming more developed. Whereas the pro-choice framework is that moral status is gradual and not binary, and that moral personhood is dependent on cognitive traits like consciousness and experience, so because a zygote/foetus lack these traits, it does not have the same moral rights as a born person does. "We don't have a clear definition of "life"? Some people brush it away by saying that it's when we have a "cognitive experience" without really addressing or understanding the difficulties associated with such a definition." I don't think there can be an argument against whether a zygote/foetus is alive or not; it clearly is (it's not dead). The diversion comes from whether that life has moral value/the right to life/not be killed. ""Philosophy of mind" or in general "Hard problem of consciousness" just look like impossible philosophy problems which science can never solve. How do you find out if another being has a conscious experience?" I think most of the science tends to agree/point to the 20-24 week mark of development. So the brain, spinal cord and nervous system etc all begin to develop pretty early on (like 4-5 weeks), but the system isn't fully "connected" or "switched on" until later, which is why I think a lot of the existing legislation and legal and moral frameworks have that pre and post 24 week line/ruling. "Without trying to diminish either side of this argument (genuinely), we really, really, really hope that it does not become the cynical political football that drives tribalism in the USA." Yeah, it'd be great if people could steer clear of that in this thread. I purposefully kept the non-philosophical points about the UK and not the USA (as there are differences). Obviously the wider, moral/ethical and philosophical questions transcend any single country/nation/time period/etc. | |||
| |||
"How do you find out if another being has a conscious experience? If a humanoid robot looking exactly like human and behaves on every way like a human, how do you differentiate it from a real human who has a cognitive experience? " Richard Dawkins concludes AI is conscious, even if it doesn’t know it | AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/05/richard-dawkins-ai-consciousness-anthropic-claude-openai-chatgpt You're in good company. | |||
" I don't think there can be an argument against whether a zygote/foetus is alive or not; it clearly is (it's not dead). " It's not that straightforward. What makes it alive? For you to call it alive, you need to define what is life. " I think most of the science tends to agree/point to the 20-24 week mark of development. So the brain, spinal cord and nervous system etc all begin to develop pretty early on (like 4-5 weeks), but the system isn't fully "connected" or "switched on" until later, which is why I think a lot of the existing legislation and legal and moral frameworks have that pre and post 24 week line/ruling. " The scientific view today about mapping between the brain and the corresponding cognitive experience is in much early stages. Many philosophers believe that you can never prove how brain gives way to cognitive experience. If that itself is a hard problem, how can you say the exact time the cognitive experience starts? " Without trying to diminish either side of this argument (genuinely), we really, really, really hope that it does not become the cynical political football that drives tribalism in the USA. "  100% agree.
In my opinion, it's a question that we can never answer for sure. Both sides will argue based on shaky foundational assumptions as "proven" truths. | |||
"How do you find out if another being has a conscious experience? If a humanoid robot looking exactly like human and behaves on every way like a human, how do you differentiate it from a real human who has a cognitive experience? Richard Dawkins concludes AI is conscious, even if it doesn’t know it | AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/05/richard-dawkins-ai-consciousness-anthropic-claude-openai-chatgpt You're in good company." You can actually take the same question in a much more controversial direction. How do you know that people around have a conscious experience and aren't just machines? I don't have access to anyone else's conscious experience. Even if they have a conscious experience, are our experiences are same. Do you see the blue colour the same way I see it? Or is your blue my yellow? The hard problem of consciousness is an amazing topic. Scientists like Dawkins try real hard to come up with explanations for what gives rise to consciousness. None of them can be proven. But above all, their explanations generally lead to other funny conclusions like AI being "conscious". | |||
"I think most of the science tends to agree/point to the 20-24 week mark of development. So the brain, spinal cord and nervous system etc all begin to develop pretty early on (like 4-5 weeks), but the system isn't fully "connected" or "switched on" until later, which is why I think a lot of the existing legislation and legal and moral frameworks have that pre and post 24 week line/ruling." I disagree. Yes a foetus slowly develops with no connections at first, but I've never heard anyone say that 24 weeks marks a significant point in foetal cognisance development. The main reason given for the 24 week limit is that it marks the earliest point at which premature babies are likely to survive. This is mostly down to lung development getting to the point where it can sustain the tiny body. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"You should have stopped at "my body, my choice" There are a multitude of reasons why women choose to have abortions. None of those choices should have to be justified to anyone. Abortions aren't illegal in this country (thankfully) and that is the way it should stay. " Absolutely this And of course everyone is entitled to their own personal view and emotions on abortion but when they start thinking that their personal emotions should lead to control over someone elses body, thats when it becomes concerning | |||
| |||
"You should have stopped at "my body, my choice" There are a multitude of reasons why women choose to have abortions. None of those choices should have to be justified to anyone. Abortions aren't illegal in this country (thankfully) and that is the way it should stay. " 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"You start off by saying it doesn't affect you so why should you care then it devolves into your very long-winded opinions in one direction. Your original point about not getting involved with someone that doesn't affect your own body autonomy was a good one." This. It’s an issue for women. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm sorry OP. But the fact that you had to use ChatGPT to come to the conclusion that you are pro choice is concerning. And it's even more concerning that you go on to say that if you were the cause of pregnancy you'd like the choice... May I suggest that if you want to do some proper research into abortions and whether you sit in the pro life or pro choice camp, that you get your information from somewhere other than ChatGPT. The decision to have an abortion isn't driven by an "oh shit I'm pregnant" moment of madness. The process you have to go through in order to have one is lengthy. Giving women plenty of time to think their decision through properly and back out of it if they wish. Women fought for the rights to safe abortion for a long time. Let's not take 100 steps back in time where women have to seek out these procedures in basements and back alleys. " Yes and frequently did horribly in the process. | |||
| |||
"I'm sorry OP. But the fact that you had to use ChatGPT to come to the conclusion that you are pro choice is concerning. And it's even more concerning that you go on to say that if you were the cause of pregnancy you'd like the choice... May I suggest that if you want to do some proper research into abortions and whether you sit in the pro life or pro choice camp, that you get your information from somewhere other than ChatGPT. The decision to have an abortion isn't driven by an "oh shit I'm pregnant" moment of madness. The process you have to go through in order to have one is lengthy. Giving women plenty of time to think their decision through properly and back out of it if they wish. Women fought for the rights to safe abortion for a long time. Let's not take 100 steps back in time where women have to seek out these procedures in basements and back alleys. Yes and frequently did horribly in the process. " Yep. A very unfortunate time to be a woman. | |||
| |||
"Tldr Doesn't matter about your opinion, it's not your body 👍🏻" This ^^^ well said | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Right... Well anyway... I aborted my own twin. Deal with it. 😎 " Did you ask ChatGPT if that was the morally right thing to do first? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Right... Well anyway... I aborted my own twin. Deal with it. 😎 Did you ask ChatGPT if that was the morally right thing to do first? " No! I don't want it taking away the mystery of me being the good or evil twin. | |||
"Right... Well anyway... I aborted my own twin. Deal with it. 😎 Did you ask ChatGPT if that was the morally right thing to do first? No! I don't want it taking away the mystery of me being the good or evil twin. " I knew there was something wrong with you! | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I’m pro choice and the woman should be allowed to choose. And by that same token the father should also be able to choose to walk away and give up their rights and responsibilities to the child too." Sounds like a can of worms has been opened. Or maybe a new topic. | |||
"Right... Well anyway... I aborted my own twin. Deal with it. 😎 Did you ask ChatGPT if that was the morally right thing to do first? " That's misrepresenting what OP actually said. He seemed to have asked both sides of the argument from ChatGPT, which is a reasonable way to use it. And then OP reached his conclusion based on what he read. FWIW I am pro-choice. But it's not as easily rationally justifiable(neither is pro-life) as many in this thread seem to think it is. | |||
"I’m pro choice and the woman should be allowed to choose. And by that same token the father should also be able to choose to walk away and give up their rights and responsibilities to the child too." Those are two completely separate things. | |||
"I’m pro choice and the woman should be allowed to choose. And by that same token the father should also be able to choose to walk away and give up their rights and responsibilities to the child too." Why would any "man" want to do that? | |||
"Right... Well anyway... I aborted my own twin. Deal with it. 😎 Did you ask ChatGPT if that was the morally right thing to do first? That's misrepresenting what OP actually said. He seemed to have asked both sides of the argument from ChatGPT, which is a reasonable way to use it. And then OP reached his conclusion based on what he read. FWIW I am pro-choice. But it's not as easily rationally justifiable(neither is pro-life) as many in this thread seem to think it is." I'm not. He used it in order to come to the conclusion that he sways toward pro-life. The funny thing with AI is that the more information you give it, the more it can lean into the answer that you want it to tell you. Getting your information from reliable sources on the other gives a more accurate idea of both points of view. | |||
"I’m pro choice and the woman should be allowed to choose. And by that same token the father should also be able to choose to walk away and give up their rights and responsibilities to the child too." A 'man' can also take many steps to ensure that situation doesn't happen | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It’s funny that ‘man’ is suddenly in quotes. Both men and women are capable of using contraception and both are responsible for a pregnancy. I was just stating that in the interested of sexual equality the father should also have the same option to cancel parenthood that the mother gets. It’s never something that’s come up for me personally. Just making a point. " That would be fine if it was as simple as cancelling parenthood. Abortion is a medical procedure done on a woman. Abandoning your child after it's been brought into the world is an entirely separate thing. I would also like to add that abortions aren't just performed because of failed contraception or the lack of, hundreds of other factors also make an abortion necessary. | |||
"Right... Well anyway... I aborted my own twin. Deal with it. 😎 Did you ask ChatGPT if that was the morally right thing to do first? That's misrepresenting what OP actually said. He seemed to have asked both sides of the argument from ChatGPT, which is a reasonable way to use it. And then OP reached his conclusion based on what he read. FWIW I am pro-choice. But it's not as easily rationally justifiable(neither is pro-life) as many in this thread seem to think it is. I'm not. He used it in order to come to the conclusion that he sways toward pro-life. The funny thing with AI is that the more information you give it, the more it can lean into the answer that you want it to tell you. Getting your information from reliable sources on the other gives a more accurate idea of both points of view. " You implied that OP asked ChatGPT whether it's morally right or wrong. He didn't. He asked what are the arguments for and against it. And his extract from ChatGPT neatly summarises the points both sides argue with. And based on that, he felt himself emotionally leaning towards the pro-life argument. Reading the same, I still stick to my pro-choice views. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Right... Well anyway... I aborted my own twin. Deal with it. 😎 Did you ask ChatGPT if that was the morally right thing to do first? That's misrepresenting what OP actually said. He seemed to have asked both sides of the argument from ChatGPT, which is a reasonable way to use it. And then OP reached his conclusion based on what he read. FWIW I am pro-choice. But it's not as easily rationally justifiable(neither is pro-life) as many in this thread seem to think it is. I'm not. He used it in order to come to the conclusion that he sways toward pro-life. The funny thing with AI is that the more information you give it, the more it can lean into the answer that you want it to tell you. Getting your information from reliable sources on the other gives a more accurate idea of both points of view. You implied that OP asked ChatGPT whether it's morally right or wrong. He didn't. He asked what are the arguments for and against it. And his extract from ChatGPT neatly summarises the points both sides argue with. And based on that, he felt himself emotionally leaning towards the pro-life argument. Reading the same, I still stick to my pro-choice views. " So he used the information that AI fed him into making his decision then, yes? | |||
"Right... Well anyway... I aborted my own twin. Deal with it. 😎 Did you ask ChatGPT if that was the morally right thing to do first? That's misrepresenting what OP actually said. He seemed to have asked both sides of the argument from ChatGPT, which is a reasonable way to use it. And then OP reached his conclusion based on what he read. FWIW I am pro-choice. But it's not as easily rationally justifiable(neither is pro-life) as many in this thread seem to think it is. I'm not. He used it in order to come to the conclusion that he sways toward pro-life. The funny thing with AI is that the more information you give it, the more it can lean into the answer that you want it to tell you. Getting your information from reliable sources on the other gives a more accurate idea of both points of view. You implied that OP asked ChatGPT whether it's morally right or wrong. He didn't. He asked what are the arguments for and against it. And his extract from ChatGPT neatly summarises the points both sides argue with. And based on that, he felt himself emotionally leaning towards the pro-life argument. Reading the same, I still stick to my pro-choice views. So he used the information that AI fed him into making his decision then, yes? " There is a difference between that and asking AI directly to make the decision. Like there is a difference between asking AI the cost and nice things to do in Spain and Costa Rica and then deciding which is the best place for me to go vs asking AI if I should go to Spain or Costa Rica. There isn't a single "correct" answer to either questions. It's subjective. AI gives you information that it has gathered. You make your subjective decision based on that, instead of asking it to make that decision for you. | |||
| |||
"There is a difference between that and asking AI directly to make the decision. Like there is a difference between asking AI the cost and nice things to do in Spain and Costa Rica and then deciding which is the best place for me to go vs asking AI if I should go to Spain or Costa Rica. There isn't a single "correct" answer to either questions. It's subjective. AI gives you information that it has gathered. You make your subjective decision based on that, instead of asking it to make that decision for you." I think we're going a little off topic here. The OP wrote that he was having issues whether abortion is morally/ethically ok. The bottom line is that it really doesn't matter what thinks because it has nothing to do with him or any man for that matter. I'm also not having a go at you because I know you said above that you are pro-choice. | |||
"There is a difference between that and asking AI directly to make the decision. Like there is a difference between asking AI the cost and nice things to do in Spain and Costa Rica and then deciding which is the best place for me to go vs asking AI if I should go to Spain or Costa Rica. There isn't a single "correct" answer to either questions. It's subjective. AI gives you information that it has gathered. You make your subjective decision based on that, instead of asking it to make that decision for you. I think we're going a little off topic here. The OP wrote that he was having issues whether abortion is morally/ethically ok. The bottom line is that it really doesn't matter what thinks because it has nothing to do with him or any man for that matter. I'm also not having a go at you because I know you said above that you are pro-choice. " Sure, that's a fair argument to make. I was just pointing out that it's wrong to dismiss OP's post on the basis that he asked ChatGPT if it was right or wrong. He didn't do that. Other arguments are totally fine | |||
"There isn't a single "correct" answer to either questions. It's subjective. AI gives you information that it has gathered. You make your subjective decision based on that, instead of asking it to make that decision for you." That is simply not true. AI is trained to want you to trust it, and by that I mean it attempts to appease you. It can cater its answers based on previous questions and conversations. It even makes up answers to keep the conversation going. It's not the encyclopaedia and bastion of knowledge people think it is. It can and is manipulated. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Until the time men can carry and birth children, then I don't feel they should have much, if any input into this area " Surely they can already, and this is entering TERF territory? | |||
" Does anyone else struggle with this? ." No , I know what I believe & why and the others of the different views and that's fine. I'm really not sure how you got around to UK population crisis though, if that's truly a factor in your opinion and view and if your views have honestly changed on such a fundamental moral and ethical issue , then maybe you're just indifferent on this one and overthinking? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Until the time men can carry and birth children, then I don't feel they should have much, if any input into this area Surely they can already, and this is entering TERF territory?" Yeah, I'm not touching that one | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"There isn't a single "correct" answer to either questions. It's subjective. AI gives you information that it has gathered. You make your subjective decision based on that, instead of asking it to make that decision for you. That is simply not true. AI is trained to want you to trust it, and by that I mean it attempts to appease you. It can cater its answers based on previous questions and conversations. It even makes up answers to keep the conversation going. It's not the encyclopaedia and bastion of knowledge people think it is. It can and is manipulated." AI's answers aren't always accurate, yes. But it's not terrible either. In simple cases like this where OP just asked the points made by either sides, it does a decent job as all it does is to summarise the things said online about the topic. And that summary which OP shared is not one-sided. He just decided to take a side as some of the points appealed to him more than others. For me, it's ok to use AI as long as you don't dump whatever it responds without even reading it, which some people unfortunately do. That's a lazy and terrible way to use it. OP seems to have really read what it says. | |||
"It’s funny that ‘man’ is suddenly in quotes. Both men and women are capable of using contraception and both are responsible for a pregnancy. I was just stating that in the interested of sexual equality the father should also have the same option to cancel parenthood that the mother gets. It’s never something that’s come up for me personally. Just making a point. " Plenty of men walk away from parenthood when the going gets tough. I’m sure if and when the time comes that men can give birth there will be a vast array of new laws made to assure they have their choice and comfort taken into consideration and made a priority. | |||
| |||
| |||
"All AI right now is at the toddler stage until the owner doesn't like what it answers with and then resets it. And AI has no consciousness or gender or feels anything we can physically. It cannot be trusted for much more than a Google search or generating graphics to upscale a pic. " Watch Hannah Fry's videos on YouTube on AI. Very funny and she's gorgeous. | |||
| |||
"All AI right now is at the toddler stage until the owner doesn't like what it answers with and then resets it. And AI has no consciousness or gender or feels anything we can physically. It cannot be trusted for much more than a Google search or generating graphics to upscale a pic. Watch Hannah Fry's videos on YouTube on AI. Very funny and she's gorgeous." We love Hannah Fry. And some of her research on this was frightening. | |||
"All AI right now is at the toddler stage until the owner doesn't like what it answers with and then resets it. And AI has no consciousness or gender or feels anything we can physically. It cannot be trusted for much more than a Google search or generating graphics to upscale a pic. " I don't believe AI has consciousness or anything. I think it was a glorified Google search until about 6 months ago. It is now much more than that. We have started using it in work for actually performing actions which do not need 100% accuracy but saves human time on it. But either way, OP just used it as a glorified Google search. | |||
" Both men and women are capable of using contraception and both are responsible for a pregnancy. " Yes, in a world where two people are consenting and (hopefully) care about the consequences of their actions I agree. But there are circumstances where consent is not given and those consequences are disregarded - I don't need to spell it out - so the woman MUST be given the choice. | |||
| |||
| |||
" Both men and women are capable of using contraception and both are responsible for a pregnancy. Yes, in a world where two people are consenting and (hopefully) care about the consequences of their actions I agree. But there are circumstances where consent is not given and those consequences are disregarded - I don't need to spell it out - so the woman MUST be given the choice. " I read this in the movie trailer guy voice! | |||
| |||
"I’m pro choice and the woman should be allowed to choose. And by that same token the father should also be able to choose to walk away and give up their rights and responsibilities to the child too." Men literally do this so what's your point lmaaaoooooooo | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I’ll be honest I only read the initial OP post and none of the others. I am pro choice. I also think that when a woman falls pregnant if she is not with the father in a relationship he should also have a choice. If the woman wants to carry the baby then he should be able to say I don’t want this and all legal obligations then fall on the woman. If the woman wants to terminate then she has the right without his consent as it’s her body. Maybe a bit radical but hey it’s only my opinion. Some may not agree as there is currently no 100% contraception accept not having sex. I had condoms break in the past. The result was my 2nd daughter a year and 2 days after my first. My poor ex spent almost 2 years pregnant. And the next 2 years both of us not sleeping lol. " So, in your specific scenario, and following your logic... What if you decided not to have any legal obligation for the second child, but you would still have legal obligations for the first, and would live with them? Sounds like something toxic would've happened. | |||
"Thanks for sharing your research and ideas O.P. As chat gpt is a large language model that crawls millions of sources and gathers information in much the same manner as you or I would I commend you on it's perfectly legitimate use and the time it saved you. It's refreshing to read that men are forming opinions on pregnancy, child birth and abortion. Not so long ago they'd have been denied an opinion and probably been glad not to have to think about 'womens' stuff. It's not womens stuff though is it ? It's about humanity, life , morals and respect , understanding , meaning, values and anything else that women and men are involved in together on a daily basis. It's about our future and about what is best for everybody concerned including the unborn child. Ultimately, no one - no woman , no man should have the power to make a woman give birth to a child she does not want for what ever reason. So to that I place the decision to abort or not firmly in the hands of the woman concerned. But I will defend to the end the right of any man to have thoughts and beliefs and to offer those thoughts and beliefs to any ongoing debate. Surely this is primary and such men serve humanity far better than those men reared to ignore 'women's stuff. The matter is a hugely complex one and reducing it to a battle of the sexes serves no one. Back to the O.P. - You mention morals, whose morals have you based your beliefs on? Are you speaking in absolute or relative terms. Are your morals cultural ? Are they more philosophical, taking into account consequentialism , deontology , virtue ethics ? Do you believe morals to be univeral ? co operative and fair ? What did you mean by morals/morality? Thanks "
This is arguably the wisest post on this thread, for multiple reasons. | |||
"I’m pro choice and the woman should be allowed to choose. And by that same token the father should also be able to choose to walk away and give up their rights and responsibilities to the child too. Men literally do this so what's your point lmaaaoooooooo " Until child support gets hold of them. Then their responsibilities become very real. | |||
"It's not that straightforward. What makes it alive? For you to call it alive, you need to define what is life." It actually is pretty straightforward. Life is generally defined in biology as a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution, characterized by organisation (cells), metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. Being "alive" describes an entity possessing these functional traits, enabling it to maintain homeostasis and resist entropy, differentiating it from inorganic matter. Key characteristics of life/being alive: - organisation (composed of one or more cells) - metabolism (energy process/chemical reactions) - homeostasis (maintenance of stable internal environment) - growth/development (organisms grow in size and structure) - reproduction (ability to produce new individual organisms) - stimuli response (interaction with environment) - evolution/adaptation (capacity to change over time) A fertilised embryo/zygote/foetus fits this definition. There's a reason why the steelman framework for pro-choice very quickly abandons any notion of a foetus not being alive (that would be dead, by definition) in favour of moral value/rights being defined instead by acquiring cognitive traits over merely being alive, and further relies on bodily autonomy absolutism. So, again, there is no argument over the life/being alive aspect. That part is definitive; the embryo/zygote/foetus is alive, it is not dead. If you still want to argue otherwise, then you need to give an alternative definition for what a foetus is that DOESN'T fit the one above one for life/alive. "I disagree. Yes a foetus slowly develops with no connections at first, but I've never heard anyone say that 24 weeks marks a significant point in foetal cognisance development." You may be right and I may be mistaken. But everything I can find on the subject through searches etc is that it's likely around the 24 week mark that sensory perception, such as pain, becomes active. This is, obviously, quite a significant benchmark when discussing human development level in the context of abortion. In my opinion. "Naturally, the human body miscarriages unborn developing foetuses without concerns for morals, or parental choice... If all foetuses were carried to term, we'd be looking at something that's very different from the natural world. There's no morality to nature and the choice that women have should be about their bodily autonomy and control of their life." You're conflating two different things here. Miscarriage isn't about intention or making a deliberate choice, whereas abortion is. That's why a moral/ethical argument for or against abortion is not a moral/ethical argument for or against miscarriage. Those things are very different (and the framework would look very different). "You start off by saying it doesn't affect you so why should you care then it devolves into your very long-winded opinions in one direction. Your original point about not getting involved with someone that doesn't affect your own body autonomy was a good one" Why is it that you categorise me not caring much or giving much thought to it to caring more and giving a lot of thought to it as a "devolution"? If it's a serious and complicated topic, and my thoughts and opinions on it are likewise complicated, combined with a desire to treat the issue seriously, does it not then follow that any explaining/exploring/sharing of said thoughts and opinions would be "long-winded"? Why is the length of my post part of your objection/counter-argument? That makes no sense whatsoever. In one direction? That's just objectively false as I clearly explore both sides and even explain/admit that I have my own conflicting/hypocritical issues with the topic. About body autonomy; I am affected. I am equally responsible in creating a fertilised egg, and if that child is born I am equally responsible for that child's wellbeing. I am a son, a brother, an uncle, a nephew, I was once a foetus that could very likely (I don't have confirmation, I'll admit) have had my future life and existence questioned/decided. There are just as many males being aborted and put into adoption/foster care as females. You think just because I'm a man this doesn't affect me or that I'm not impacted. I used to think like that, too. I was wrong. And so are you. "I've comfortably had 3 abortionAnd of course everyone is entitled to their own personal view and emotions on abortion" That's interesting. Personally I find even the thought of me getting an abortion uncomfortable, let alone going through with it three times. I'm sorry that you had to do that (even if it seems you aren't). I appreciate you saying everyone is entitled to have their view on it, it seems many disagree, unfortunately. "but when they start thinking that their personal emotions should lead to control over someone elses body, thats when it becomes concerning" That is indeed an alarming thought and a perfectly legitimate concern, especially in this case as, obviously, women carry the biological burden of pregnancy, so there is a clear asymmetry when it comes to the costs/risks. However, I think it's worth noting that when we say, "personal emotions leading to control over someone else's body", are we simply talking about how legislation and law making works in a democratic society? The Abortion Act was introduced by a man, and passed in a parliament that was predominantly male, after all. Talking more generally about passing laws, we do this to impede people's bodily autonomy all the time, actually. At what point do we say that it's "personal emotions" that lead to it? Or can we agree that once it gets to the stage of creating legislation, it's just become a part of the democratic process at that point, and has gone beyond any one person's feelings? "You should have stopped at "my body, my choice"" Why? "There are a multitude of reasons why women choose to have abortions. None of those choices should have to be justified to anyone." Right, and we can still discuss and debate those reasons, and we can still explore the moral/ethical issues that arise from it. And we should do so (we being society). "Abortions aren't illegal in this country (thankfully) and that is the way it should stay." I think there can be a degree of separation from the moral argument and the legal one, for sure. But I also get why there is often overlap and conflation when discussing/debating these things. I do wonder, though, how many in this thread that are quick to throw out the, "woman's body, woman's choice" and the, "you're a man so you don't get to have a say" are aware that the Abortion Act was by a man, and passed by a majority male parliament. The reality is that as part of a democratic system, both men and women DO get a say about things that do not directly affect them/their bodies. Every day. All the time. "OP maybe you should lay off the ChatGPT and think for yourself. A little empathy for others that might go through or have been through something you will never might help as well" What part of my OP led you to conclude I'm not thinking for myself? What part suggests I don't have any empathy for others? If I get somebody pregnant, I might also go through abortion... | |||
"I think the marketing team for Pro-Life has done a good job. Pro-choice doesn't sound amazing" I think you make a good point, and it's actually something that ChatGPT gave me pushback on (something I asked it to do). Over the past couple of years just looking into it myself I was more strongly on the pro-life side in part because of the bad optics often found on the pro-choice side. When I asked for a distilled steelman, the strongest version that cuts through a lot of the current online rhetoric and discourse and filtering out the weaker arguments, I was actually drawn back more towards a middle-ground. "There's being "alive" and being fully sentient. I probably have a block of cheese hidden in my fridge with the same (arguably more) "life". Walking down the street you're going to step on all sorts of insects." Speaking of weaker arguments... yeah, the moral dilemma here isn't about ALL life being equal in value/rights. I think it's pretty well known at this point that both the pro-life and pro-choice positions agree that the bacteria in your cheese or an insect on the ground isn't held to the same moral value as a human being. Obviously. "There's an absolute chasm between aborting a human foetus and giving it a decent life in this rather shit world. It's absolutely ethical to have a choice over such a huge thing, for their future at the very least." Another weak and morally indefensible position. This implies lives with hardship (inevitable for most) are less worth living, that merely the projection of possible future suffering permits ending someone's chance at any kind of life at all... "just to be on the safe side" / "it's the kinder thing to do", and that by default, non-existence is automatically preferable unless there is somehow a 100% guarantee that person's life will be "easy" or "only happy" (virtually impossible). Being born, growing up, living life etc, has possible negative and positive outcomes; quality of life can fluctuate and change, things can (and do) get better. Abortion is permanent, irreversible, absolute. I'm sorry your world is shit and I hope it gets better for you, but your reality is not everyone else's reality, and in no way, shape or form stands as a moral argument for pre-emptively deciding on other people's behalf that they'd be better off dead anyway. Jeez, that's so dark when I actually type it out. Damn. "She’s the one who could die giving birth." With modern medical care and facilities, the UK is a very safe place to give birth. Serious but non-fatal complications are already extremely rare, while fatal risk to the mother's life is near non-existent in this day and age (thankfully). This fact is compounded further by the fact that early delivery of the baby can save both lives, meaning abortion is even less necessary to save women from death in childbirth. It's an extremely rare exception that proves the general rule, it doesn't disprove it. "I think a lot of people who think the same as you, OP, are more pro-birth than pro-life." I haven't heard of 'pro-birth' before, but after a quick google search (sorry guys, I didn't think it up/automatically know that all by myself and had to use a computer programme! Sorry, so sorry guys) I can categorically say that is not the case, and I'm not sure which part of my OP would even indicate that...? "I'm sorry OP. But the fact that you had to use ChatGPT to come to the conclusion that you are pro choice is concerning." Where did I say I HAD to do that? Or that that is even what I did (I didn't)? I think you've misunderstood the OP. "And it's even more concerning that you go on to say that if you were the cause of pregnancy you'd like the choice..." Yeah. It's called a moral dilemma/conflict. I get how that's concerning to me, but I'm wondering why it's so concerning for you? What - you've never been morally conflicted before in your life? Ever? About anything? "May I suggest that if you want to do some proper research into abortions and whether you sit in the pro life or pro choice camp, that you get your information from somewhere other than ChatGPT." So nothing I've done over the years in my run-up the the chat with AI on Tuesday counts? Why not? What does "proper research" mean? What was yours? How much shall we bet right now that, miraculously, only the sources that would lead me to conclude to be pro-choice counts as "proper research" in your eyes? Hmm? "Women fought for the rights to safe abortion for a long time. Let's not take 100 steps back in time where women have to seek out these procedures in basements and back alleys." And it was actually men's voices and votes that passed those rights. Yet I keep being told it's not our place to do so. Mine is more the moral/philosophical debate, rather than the legal/legislative one, but I do appreciate that there is overlap and conflation can occur here. Nevertheless... I will clarify that it's not my wish, stance, intention, or argument that women should feel the need to seek out illegal and unsafe abortions. At all. "Until the time men can carry and birth children, then I don't feel they should have much, if any input into this area" So on that principle we should repeal the Abortion Act, then? | |||
"Men seem to unknow abortion is a spontaneous, and usual situation for women. More that 20% of pregnancies end for natural reasons and are a defensive natural response of our bodies to any kind of risk involved. Even a stressful situation can cause it." Morally speaking, there's a chalk and cheese difference between a natural occurrence out of anyone's control and a deliberate, intentional choice. But you already know that, don't you? "Abortion, for natural reasons or not, is never an easy experience." Seemingly for some women it is. Are their voices/life experiences not real/valid? "It’s very simple for me. Should a foetus have more bodily autonomy than the mother? The answer should always be no" That's valid. It's one of the parts I struggle with, though. What about the bodily autonomy of the baby? Why is it less deserving of life? Etc. "After the first post, it's reassuring as a woman, to see some men chiming in with the same thoughts as those of the ladies on the thread." It's an interesting double-standard to constantly read that a man, by default, has no right to a voice/opinion/viewpoint on abortion... until or unless it agrees with you, then it's suddenly okay - praised and celebrated, even. Almost as if it's not a genuinely held or maintained principle at all. Very interesting. "Why does an unborn life take precedent over that of the one carrying it. Abortion isn't a form of contraception, but I'd imagine the numbers of people using it that way are slim" It doesn't. The life of the one carrying it isn't being destroyed, except in exceptionally rare - near non-existent - cases. Whereas abortion has a 100% fatality rate for the baby. There's no need for precedence when in 99.99% of pregnancies both lives are safe/saved. Secondly, the data simply disagrees with you. There's a reason why far less than 1% of abortions are done for risk to the life of the mother. I agree with you - abortion isn't a form of contraception, but I'm worried that a lot of my unease with the pro-choice position is that it's effectively being used that way when you really boil it down. "You lost me at Chat GTPShe doesn't need a man to have an opinion on what should happen to her body, her rights over that of the foetus always..." Why did I?So, you disagree with the Abortion Act and want it repealed, then? Men have opinions and make choices about what happens to your (and everyone's) body all the time, though. It's called legislation/lawmaking. Why is it her rights over the baby's always? What makes the baby less entitled to the right to life? "I don't think any woman takes the decision to terminate a pregnancy easily.But I don't agree this isn't an issue for men - in principle, ensuring rights aren't eroded, or in practice, where supporting a partner through the decision/procedure seems pretty vital." I would like to believe that, too. Unfortunately I've read/heard/seen too many women say that it's easy for them. Maybe they're lying?I agree that this is an issue for men both in principle and in practice. "FWIW I am pro-choice. But it's not as easily rationally justifiable(neither is pro-life) as many in this thread seem to think it is." Exactly. There's nuance. Complexity. It can be challenging and uncomfortable to grapple with, especially if, like me, you have any internal conflicts/contradictions. Too many (in this thread and beyond out in the world) reduce it down to simplicity and black & whiteness. I get it, it can make these things more morally palatable for one's conscience. "I'm not. He used it in order to come to the conclusion that he sways toward pro-life." Yes you are. No I didn't. You've misunderstood the OP. "The funny thing with AI is that the more information you give it, the more it can lean into the answer that you want it to tell you. Getting your information from reliable sources on the other gives a more accurate idea of both points of view." That is a funny thing, true. It's a good job I'm savvy with my prompts, and continually ask it in as neutral and objective terms as possible, and actively ask it for pushback and highlight any weaknesses or faulty/inconsistent logic/reasoning, and to only give me the steelman/strongest framework for both sides. Again, what are these "reliable sources"? What are yours? If ChatGPT's summary of both points of view is so inaccurate, by all means point out how and then provide more accurate ones. | |||
"I would also like to add that abortions aren't just performed because of failed contraception or the lack of, hundreds of other factors also make an abortion necessary." What are these hundreds of other factors/reasons, beyond the near non-existent fatal risk to the mother's life? Being what the woman wants isn't the same thing as being medically necessary... not in any way, shape, or form. Not from a logical argument and not from a moral one. "In an economy that can barely sustain a family with two working parents and only one child, the idea of forcing every unwanted pregnancy is even more malignant. The population crisis has roots in the economic one. Forcing more people into outright poverty is a dick move. And to bring a child into the world when there are no means to provide for it, emotionally or financially, is cruel." To be born and alive today in the UK is to be amongst THE richest and most privileged humans to have ever existed in the history of mankind. Ever. I'm sorry but describing the UK as "outright poverty" and just proclaiming there'd be no emotional or financial means by default is just utter nonsense. And as has already been covered, projecting poor economic/quality of life merely as a possibility DOES NOT fly as a moral argument for the assured and absolute "cure" of aborting babies instead. Period. It's such a weak argument from a moral/philosophical standpoint. You know those bad optics for pro-choice that were mentioned by a previous poster? Yeah, that's what this is, because it just comes off as an attempt to rationalise away and assuage guilt. "That contraception is enough is bullshit. As a woman who was told she was infertile, but still had the coil for period issues anyway, and was using condoms, I can tell you it is not enough." No contraceptive method, other than celibacy, is 100% effective. Everybody knows this. That does not make the use of contraception "bullshit", by any means. I will stand by the responsible use of contraception by people who don't want to become pregnant, all day, every day. There's nothing to disprove or counter the data and the claim that if education and access were improved/optimised, and multiple overlapping forms are used, particularly LARC (ideally with barriers such as condoms, as LARC doesn't cover STIs), that unwanted/unintended pregnancies would significantly decrease. That can't go ignored. There will always be exceptions. I'm sorry that you seem to be one of them, but your case doesn't disprove the rule. "And despite being diagnosed infertile, with an array of painful issues that would be solved with a hysterectomy, I am not allowed such, even though if I get pregnant at my age it's considered a high risk "geriatric pregnancy". I'm not even permitted a tubal ligation" Nothing in my OP has anything to do with you not being allowed these procedures, though. I fully support your choice/decision to have a hysterectomy or your tubes tied if that's what you want. In my opinion you're a grown woman and any grown woman should be able to have those things done if they want. It has nothing to do with the moral argument for pro-life vs. pro-choice, though. "not that I'd rely on that since my mother had one about a decade before I was born" And for what it's worth, I'm glad you exist and have gotten to live your life. How do you and your mother feel? Would you rather exist or not? "A bundle of cells with human DNA and no capability of consciousness is not a human. A pregnant woman is. And only one of those is capable of making a choice." We are all a "bundle of cells with human DNA" though, whether we are conscious or unconscious. If it's not human then what species is it? If a human becomes unconscious, for example via sleep, being knocked out, being in a coma, etc, they are no longer human? You see the logical fallacy here, I trust? And the dangerous road this leads when it comes to moral value and rights? Again, like your poverty and shit world reasoning, it's incredibly weak from a moral standpoint. Attempts to dehumanise the unborn baby are just more bad pro-choice optics, designed to make swallowing the bitter and uncomfortable pill that you're killing a human life easier on your conscience. "Having had an abortion, I can tell you it is fucking horrendous to go through. No-one is using that as a form of contraception. It's a last resort." I'm sorry you had to make that extremely difficult choice. The fact that it is so horrendous only makes my moral instinct/stance against abortion stronger, and makes it all the more important that we try and go the prevention over the "cure" route as much as wherever and whenever possible. I wish that nobody was using it as a form of contraception, but the data simply does not agree with you. And I've seen/read/heard the words from women's mouths, too. Unless they were lying. "And one that women will continue to take whether it's legal or not. To remove the ability to do it legally and safely only causes harm." This is a good point and worth noting/remembering during this issue/debate. As I said earlier to this point; my OP is not an argument, endorsement or wish for women to seek out illegal and unsafe abortions. I think as a society and a culture we should do our absolute best to try and help women see that they have other options, always. "I'm really not sure how you got around to UK population crisis though" Really? It's pretty well known and documented at this point that the UK has an aging population, and that our birth rates are now below replacement level. This is a problem. We can also look at abortion rates in the UK. Obviously there's been a general rise since the Abortion Act in the late '60s, but there has also been stabilisation since. However, there has been a more drastic, sharp rise/increase in the last 20 or so years, with another significant bump post 2020. There are of course many factors, but to ignore abortion rates entirely is turning a blind eye, no? "Op you need to talk to some actual real women on women's issues chat gtp? Seriously.. you had a good chat with AI about a real world issue?" So the two partners I have who are women don't count (one is more pro-choice leaning, the other more pro-life leaning, for those interested), the women I've listened to when speaking about it don't count? What about all the women, men and couples on here? Are they real? Does me making this very thread and talking/discussing it with them count at all? No? | |||
"This is part of the problem, body autonomy should not be a debate." So what about the bodily autonomy of the unborn baby? "The Absolute nonsense you are churning out sounds like all the red pill maga morons trying to sound clever..." Really? I was quite careful to keep the debate within the moral/philosophical sphere, with any of the more outside factors being UK-focused. Can I press you on what, specifically, is "absolute nonsense"? And then I would ask you for corrections, if you have any (you know, like, how actually having a discussion about it would work). "Your choice is to do whatever you can to not cause a pregnancy. Never ever have sex without a condom. Of course there is a chance of it failing but it's a slim one. Or only have sex with post menopausal women and women you know for a fact are one a very reliable birth control and still always use a condom which you should be doing anyway, safe sex and all that." Totally agree that prevention of unwanted pregnancy should be the goal, that's paramount. I also believe strongly in informed consent, and that no amount of contraception (apart from celibacy) can provide a 100% guarantee that pregnancy won't occur... it's simply a fact that having sex carries with it the possibility of creating a baby. As adults, we should all be fully aware of that possible outcome going in. "Forcing the woman to carry to term with all the health risks that entails is just appalling. I do agree with b not having late abortions except for specific concerns about the health of the mother/ child." The issue here is that "all the health risks that entails" are quite minor, especially here in the UK and with modern medicine. The risks of serious but non-fatal complications are already very low, and the risk of life to the mother is near non-existent. Weigh that against abortion, which is 100% fatal to the baby 100% of the time. That seems like a very shaky trade-off from the moral argument/viewpoint. "Forcing pregnancy creates unhappy children who are more likely to become criminals. A fact shown in the USA where crime fell twenty years after" Woah, it's a bit of an oversimplification/overstatement to claim that as a fact. That study/theory is controversial and debated, it's far from being settled science and is one hypothesis among several, has trouble being replicated reliably, etc. And that's the USA, not the UK. When you boil this down you get the same reasoning that I've addressed previously: namely that it uses statistical trends to treat people as outcomes of circumstance instead of individuals with agency. It ignores the possibility (and reality) that many people born into difficult circumstances grow up to do very well, and conversely many people who were wanted/planned pregnancies and born into a life of easy and comfort can (and do) go on to become criminals, etc. Which is all besides the point when it comes to the moral argument/framework - using projected/predicted outcomes does not work as a moral justification to pre-emptively destroy that life before it's even had a shot at it. "Oh and stop using CHATGPT and talk to women about this instead." Why are they mutually exclusive? Do my two partners not count? Do the women I've already read/listened to not count? Do this very thread where I opened the discussion for any and all, men, women, couples, to partake in, not count? Make it make sense. "Plenty of men walk away from parenthood when the going gets tough." Just as open to debate the morals and justifications of doing so, in my opinion. Unlike many others, I hold the man equally responsible for the fertilisation of the egg, and of the child's well being once it's born. "Let's not start asking AI chat bots deeply nuanced ethical and philosophical questions that can affect the lives on billions of people please" Why not (genuine question)? "Let's remember that chatgpt is owned by a private entity and runs on investment, it is not run on altruism. It is programmed and developed by human beings who are not impartial." This is a good point, and worth remembering. I would argue, however, that this goes for any source of information/research method. Be it a science book, online video, articles, chat bots, etc. It applies to them all. "Yes, in a world where two people are consenting and (hopefully) care about the consequences of their actions I agree. But there are circumstances where consent is not given and those consequences are disregarded - I don't need to spell it out - so the woman MUST be given the choice." But those circumstances are a rare exception to the norm, they prove the general rule, they don't disprove it. Also, this is one of those areas where it gets even more morally complex and grey; why should the baby pay with its life for the crime of the r@pist? Etc. | |||
"However, people who don’t take the relevant precautions, both men and women, and then rely on abortion as some kind of fail-safe doesn’t sit well with me at all. On threads above, people referred to the risks women might be exposed to during pregnancy, but no mention of the risks, both physically and mentally, to women who have abortions. I would prefer the prevention of pregnancy as opposed to the cure. At sixteen weeks, a foetus looks like a baby to me and personally I could not have an abortion" This is mostly my intuition as well. I think a big part of my moral unease and what sways me more towards pro-life is what you've said here. "It's refreshing to read that men are forming opinions on pregnancy, child birth and abortion. Not so long ago they'd have been denied an opinion and probably been glad not to have to think about 'womens' stuff. It's not womens stuff though is it ? It's about humanity, life , morals and respect , understanding , meaning, values and anything else that women and men are involved in together on a daily basis. It's about our future and about what is best for everybody concerned including the unborn child.Ultimately, no one - no woman , no man should have the power to make a woman give birth to a child she does not want for what ever reason. So to that I place the decision to abort or not firmly in the hands of the woman concerned. But I will defend to the end the right of any man to have thoughts and beliefs and to offer those thoughts and beliefs to any ongoing debate. Surely this is primary and such men serve humanity far better than those men reared to ignore 'women's stuff. The matter is a hugely complex one and reducing it to a battle of the sexes serves no one." Very well said. Thank you for your input. I fear that even now men are being denied an opinion, however. But hopefully that will continue to change, and men will continue to educate themselves, become more actively interested, become more present, more responsible, etc, and in turn women will have and feel more supported. That's a hope for a better future we can all wish for. "You mention morals, whose morals have you based your beliefs on? Are you speaking in absolute or relative terms. Are your morals cultural ? Are they more philosophical, taking into account consequentialism , deontology , virtue ethics ? Do you believe morals to be univeral ? co operative and fair ? What did you mean by morals/morality?" These are great questions, and I'm going to be totally upfront and honest here in that I don't really know all those answers, not off the top of my head. I suppose if I really try and think about it, most of my morals/core beliefs come from my parents and grandparents, how I was raised, and primary school. So cultural in large part, yeah. Growing up in England in the the 90s, it's pretty safe to say I've inherited the core package of basic Christian Ethics. But I have explored philosophical, too. What do I mean by morals/morality? What is right/wrong? What is good/bad? Maybe something like that. I'd have to look into the specific things you mentioned more deeply to gain a better understanding, I feel. Thanks again for your post. "I am pro choiceI also think that when a woman falls pregnant if she is not with the father in a relationship he should also have a choice. If the woman wants to carry the baby then he should be able to say I don’t want this and all legal obligations then fall on the woman. If the woman wants to terminate then she has the right without his consent as it’s her body. Maybe a bit radical but hey it’s only my opinion. Some may not agree as there is currently no 100% contraception accept not having sex. I had condoms break in the past. The result was my 2nd daughter a year and 2 days after my first. My poor ex spent almost 2 years pregnant. And the next 2 years both of us not sleeping lol." Thanks for your input. I think you raise a lot of good points, and congratulations on your two daughters! I know it must have been hard, but I'm guessing you love both just the same and wouldn't change her for the world. "Im pro choice. Anything else is wrong. If you dont want to have an abortion thats your choice.If someone else does thats their choice." I envy your black & white stance, in a way. It certainly makes things easier when it comes to internal conflict/struggles. You say it's your choice to have one and also to not have one, right? So the issue starts when one does and one doesn't, it takes two to tango, I hold both equally responsible. Also what about the baby, they don't even get a choice, do they? How does that feel/sit? | |||
"I would also like to add that abortions aren't just performed because of failed contraception or the lack of, hundreds of other factors also make an abortion necessary.What are these hundreds of other factors/reasons, beyond the near non-existent fatal risk to the mother's life? Being what the woman wants isn't the same thing as being medically necessary... not in any way, shape, or form. Not from a logical argument and not from a moral one." It's not near non-existent at all. A quick google search let's you know that hundreds of women die during birth each year. You know contraception fails, right? So if a woman is to fall pregnant after taking all the necessary precautions not to, she should be made to carry that child if it isn't medically necessary to have an abortion? What a load of bull. Aside from the risk of death. Another medically necessary reason would be, Fetal abnormalities. Bringing a child into the world who would have no quality of life. The point i was trying to make is there are a lot of people out there who have this idea that women use abortion as a form of contraception. Or that we are careless about it because that option is there, which is so far from the truth. As I said there are a multitude of reasons why women have abortions. Some of those may not be necessary in your eyes, but it is to them and quite frankly, that's all that really matters. I've had two incase you were wondering. So I'm pretty qualified in this department. One of those was due to failed contraception. The other i can't get into on here for reasons. | |||
| |||
""Yes, in a world where two people are consenting and (hopefully) care about the consequences of their actions I agree. But there are circumstances where consent is not given and those consequences are disregarded - I don't need to spell it out - so the woman MUST be given the choice." But those circumstances are a rare exception to the norm, they prove the general rule, they don't disprove it. Also, this is one of those areas where it gets even more morally complex and grey; why should the baby pay with its life for the crime of the r@pist? Etc "Forcing the woman to carry to term with all the health risks that entails is just appalling. I do agree with b not having late abortions except for specific concerns about the health of the mother/ child." The issue here is that "all the health risks that entails" are quite minor, especially here in the UK and with modern medicine. The risks of serious but non-fatal complications are already very low, and the risk of life to the mother is near non-existent. Weigh that against abortion, which is 100% fatal to the baby 100% of the time. That seems like a very shaky trade-off from the moral argument/viewpoint." So if im reading this right you think that someone who has been sexually assaulted/abused should have to carry the child term. That children should be born with life ending/limiting conditions that would involve a life of no quality or a painful/traumatic death, because what about the babies right to live?? Jeez... | |||
"How do you find out if another being has a conscious experience? If a humanoid robot looking exactly like human and behaves on every way like a human, how do you differentiate it from a real human who has a cognitive experience? Richard Dawkins concludes AI is conscious, even if it doesn’t know it | AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/05/richard-dawkins-ai-consciousness-anthropic-claude-openai-chatgpt You're in good company." I would normally agree with most of Richard Dawkins views. However on this I think he misses the point. What we call AI is not actually intelligence what it is a machine learning based on large language models and pattern matching. Very sophisticated machine learning but machine learning all the same. Pattern matching is not inherently intelligent. To have real intelligence you need consciousness and to be self aware but as Artificial Consciousness does not exist neither can Artificial Intelligence exist. To put it in simple form I can show ChatGPT a picture of a cat and it will recognise the picture and tell me it’s a cat but it doesn’t actually know what a cat is…. For that you need understanding which comes with intelligence. This has gone off on a tangent from the original poster something, that what is currently mislabelled as A.I. doesn’t do successfully or can recognise that a post like this is tangential to the original. | |||
"It's not near non-existent at all. A quick google search let's you know that hundreds of women die during birth each year." So, do you just not know how percentages work, or...? "You know contraception fails, right? So if a woman is to fall pregnant after taking all the necessary precautions not to, she should be made to carry that child if it isn't medically necessary to have an abortion? What a load of bull." Of course. I've gone over contraception a few times already in this topic. It's not a moral justification or argument, no. How is that a 'load of bull'? "Aside from the risk of death. Another medically necessary reason would be, Fetal abnormalities. Bringing a child into the world who would have no quality of life." These also fall under that 1-2% figure, alongside risk of life to the mother and r@pe/inc3st cases. The moral discussion/dilemma is more about the other 98%, as was outlined in the OP. "The point i was trying to make is there are a lot of people out there who have this idea that women use abortion as a form of contraception. Or that we are careless about it because that option is there, which is so far from the truth. As I said there are a multitude of reasons why women have abortions. Some of those may not be necessary in your eyes" There's a reason why that idea exists, though, isn't there. And it's not about "my eyes", it's about those reasons not being medically necessary from an objective, medical standpoint. And then there's the moral debate on top. So, again, let's go through and discuss some of those reasons, hundreds apparently, and we can explore and investigate how they stack up from a moral viewpoint. "I've had two incase you were wondering. So I'm pretty qualified in this department. One of those was due to failed contraception. The other i can't get into on here for reasons." I'm sorry you went through that. "Perhaps when you grow a uterus you can comment, pass judgement and understand" A) I don't need a uterus to have a moral/philosophical stance or be able to debate about this. B) People without a uterus (men) have, and will, comment and pass judgement on this issue - such as the Abortion Act. C) Abortion affects and impacts men, too. As has been explained already in this thread. "So if im reading this right you think that someone who has been sexually assaulted/abused should have to carry the child term. That children should be born with life ending/limiting conditions that would involve a life of no quality or a painful/traumatic death" No, not quite. I'm more concerned about the other 98% of abortions, not the 1-2% of rare and exceptional cases. To clarify, I'm not morally conflicted about the severe foetal abnormality cases, where it's 100% clear and certain that the baby will have a short/painful/horrible life, etc. With the r@pe cases, it gets more morally grey and complicated. I believe the r@pist should be punished, certainly, but I'm not sure there's a moral argument for having the baby pay for the r@pists crime with its life. Aborting the baby doesn't undo the r@pe, nor does it heal the trauma for the mother, it just adds another trauma, and there's always adoption which I think is perfectly reasonable and understandable if the mother doesn't feel like she could raise the baby herself. Otherwise we're kind of setting a moral precedent that any child/adult born of r@pe is less valuable/has less right to life than those born of consensual sex. I think that's morally questionable at the very least. | |||
"It's not near non-existent at all. A quick google search let's you know that hundreds of women die during birth each year. So, do you just not know how percentages work, or...? You know contraception fails, right? So if a woman is to fall pregnant after taking all the necessary precautions not to, she should be made to carry that child if it isn't medically necessary to have an abortion? What a load of bull. Of course. I've gone over contraception a few times already in this topic. It's not a moral justification or argument, no. How is that a 'load of bull'? Aside from the risk of death. Another medically necessary reason would be, Fetal abnormalities. Bringing a child into the world who would have no quality of life. These also fall under that 1-2% figure, alongside risk of life to the mother and r@pe/inc3st cases. The moral discussion/dilemma is more about the other 98%, as was outlined in the OP. The point i was trying to make is there are a lot of people out there who have this idea that women use abortion as a form of contraception. Or that we are careless about it because that option is there, which is so far from the truth. As I said there are a multitude of reasons why women have abortions. Some of those may not be necessary in your eyes There's a reason why that idea exists, though, isn't there. And it's not about "my eyes", it's about those reasons not being medically necessary from an objective, medical standpoint. And then there's the moral debate on top. So, again, let's go through and discuss some of those reasons, hundreds apparently, and we can explore and investigate how they stack up from a moral viewpoint. I've had two incase you were wondering. So I'm pretty qualified in this department. One of those was due to failed contraception. The other i can't get into on here for reasons. I'm sorry you went through that. Perhaps when you grow a uterus you can comment, pass judgement and understand A) I don't need a uterus to have a moral/philosophical stance or be able to debate about this. B) People without a uterus (men) have, and will, comment and pass judgement on this issue - such as the Abortion Act. C) Abortion affects and impacts men, too. As has been explained already in this thread. So if im reading this right you think that someone who has been sexually assaulted/abused should have to carry the child term. That children should be born with life ending/limiting conditions that would involve a life of no quality or a painful/traumatic death No, not quite. I'm more concerned about the other 98% of abortions, not the 1-2% of rare and exceptional cases. To clarify, I'm not morally conflicted about the severe foetal abnormality cases, where it's 100% clear and certain that the baby will have a short/painful/horrible life, etc. With the r@pe cases, it gets more morally grey and complicated. I believe the r@pist should be punished, certainly, but I'm not sure there's a moral argument for having the baby pay for the r@pists crime with its life. Aborting the baby doesn't undo the r@pe, nor does it heal the trauma for the mother, it just adds another trauma, and there's always adoption which I think is perfectly reasonable and understandable if the mother doesn't feel like she could raise the baby herself. Otherwise we're kind of setting a moral precedent that any child/adult born of r@pe is less valuable/has less right to life than those born of consensual sex. I think that's morally questionable at the very least." 
Oh wow
Really....Why should a woman have to carry a life who was recreated without her consent? Nothing to do with making the baby pay. It's about the rights of the woman.
It seems very black and white to you...it isn't it really isn't
One of my oldest Childhood friends was created in this way, he discovered the truth as a teenager and it sent him down a path of drugs and suicide....Thats no life, he's had no life.
And you are contradicting, you say that a baby created non consensually isn't any less valuable than other babies yet you say it's ok to abort babies with abnormalities? Why is their life less valuable than any other if you want to go down that road?
| |||
| |||
"OP. If you think a woman should have to suffer and be traumatised for 9 months, not to mention the trauma of giving birth after conceiving through r**e. Then the traumatising process of giving a child up for adoption, you really need to start looking at your morals in other areas of your life. Also, medically, a baby isn't considered a baby until its born. Just letting you know. I'm actually disgusted. " Well said | |||
| |||
"OP. If you think a woman should have to suffer and be traumatised for 9 months, not to mention the trauma of giving birth after conceiving through r**e. Then the traumatising process of giving a child up for adoption, you really need to start looking at your morals in other areas of your life. Also, medically, a baby isn't considered a baby until its born. Just letting you know. I'm actually disgusted. " 👏🏻👏🏻 And to the OP do you realise how many children are in the system ach year already and the number is evergrowing almost a 50% increase from 2022-2026 that coupled with an massive shortage of families wanting to adopt, the average child spends nearly 2 years in the system before they are potentially adopted and the older they get the less likely they are to be adopted....not to mention the trauma that child will go through if they were to find out how they were conceived. That is not the solution, a woman and in some cases a child being able to choose what they do with the resulting pregnancy will always trump come first for me. | |||
| |||
"OP. If you think a woman should have to suffer and be traumatised for 9 months, not to mention the trauma of giving birth after conceiving through r**e. Then the traumatising process of giving a child up for adoption, you really need to start looking at your morals in other areas of your life. Also, medically, a baby isn't considered a baby until its born. Just letting you know. I'm actually disgusted. 👏🏻👏🏻 And to the OP do you realise how many children are in the system ach year already and the number is evergrowing almost a 50% increase from 2022-2026 that coupled with an massive shortage of families wanting to adopt, the average child spends nearly 2 years in the system before they are potentially adopted and the older they get the less likely they are to be adopted....not to mention the trauma that child will go through if they were to find out how they were conceived. That is not the solution, a woman and in some cases a child being able to choose what they do with the resulting pregnancy will always trump come first for me." Pro lifers don't think that far ahead. They think there are endless family's who live in beautiful houses with little white picket fences, waiting to welcome a child into their family. They forget about the millions of care kids who have lived awful childhoods. Moving home to home, suffering child abuse. Adoption isn't the answer to abortion. | |||
"I'm all for pro choice absolutely. I think my view slightly alters when people use it as a form of contraception. Use contraception in the first place if you don't want children! " Do you think there are all that many women that really choose it as a form of contraception? | |||
"I'm all for pro choice absolutely. I think my view slightly alters when people use it as a form of contraception. Use contraception in the first place if you don't want children! Do you think there are all that many women that really choose it as a form of contraception?" I know a few who have yes. Not saying all not at all | |||
| |||
