The Abortion Debate Thread

Viable means: capable of surviving or living successfully, especially under particular environmental conditions.

This is where I disagree. A mother’s autonomy does not take precedence over any human life.

Newborn babies require assistance.

At what stage does a fertilized egg become a human in your opinion?

Yes, not viable without the use of the mother’s body. Surely we can agree on that point and get past this quibbling about terms here?

Yes, that is the point of disagreement.

Yes, but not necessarily the use of the mother’s body.

In my opinion, at the time of conception.

before the time of implantation?

I thought you weren’t participating any further?

I’m just asking what I am interested in. And your answer is yes or no?

This question too. Im just interested in how you think on that kind of cases. I don’t know why you refuse to answer to this yes or no question.

At the time the egg is fertilized. So I guess that would also mean before the time of implantation.

In your opinion, at what time does a fertilized egg become a human life?

IMO, a fertilized egg is just a cell yet, not a human. When a fetus has developed most of organs and can survive with usual medical assistances out of mother’s body, it is already a human. In between, I’m not sure.

So, you oppose to in vitro fertilization too, unless all of fertilized eggs are implanted, right?


Your condition for a baby to be human is that it can survive outside the mother’s body, and before that point, when the baby is completely reliant on its mother you’re not sure?

So are you against late-term abortions, say after 6 months?

I am.

yes, I’m against late-term abortions, unless there are some special circumstances. When mother’s health will be severely damaged by the pregnancy with high possibility, there is no other measure to stop the pregnancy more safely and the mother wants a late-term abortion, I am not against it. It may be debatable what is a severe damage on mother’s health and how high the possibility should be.

I have no moral objection against women use chemical to prevent a possible implantation of a possible fertilized egg to avoid unwanted pregnancy.


So you’re against abortion laws that permit late-term abortions when there’s no physical risk to the mother?

yes. Late-term abortion is harmful to mpther’s body too.

Are you against abortion laws that permit late-term abortions when there’s physical risk to the mother?

I used to be pro-choice until I had a baby. I had to grow to love my husband but I loved my babies instantly and became hypersensitive to news stories where children were harmed. I’m still against government getting in my biz about anything.
If you’ve ever known someone who had an abortion, there’s a mental health issue that people don’t talk about. You can’t carry a baby and feel them move around and then be ok with losing a baby whether by abortion or natural causes.
I am also creeped out by Margaret Danger’s eugenics theology.
I guess I’m anti government involvement but pro life. Is that a thing?

1 Like

That’s called pro choice.

Pro choice is not pro abortion. It simply means everyone gets the choice to do so or not. You can be pro choice AND anti abortion at the same time. As long as you are not for interfering in the decisions of other people, that is pro choice.


I just don’t like to be associated with people who see abortion as health care. I don’t like either extreme.

1 Like

Not quite. What if she is anti-government investment in say funding abortions? The Planned Parenthood argument?

BTW, my kid did an actual researched and sourced paper on this in his philosophy class a year back. There are actually schools of thought about abortion as it relates to murder.

One goes like this: if you kill an old man, you take from him his memories and experience, all the things that made him human. If you abort a zygote…ya don’t. If you abort a 5 month healthy fetus, ya don’t either. They don’t have memories or experience to steal away. :idunno:

Some bean counter might say hey, providing abortions is cheaper than educating people. Health care is a social issue. Can’t have all these babies making babies. And the poor make the most babies. When middle class or wealthy people have abortions it’s more an economic choice than a health care choice, ie Can we afford another kid? So, poor people might see abortion as a health care issue, and well off folks not so much…but neither side wants their “god given” choice taken away…which is a political issue.

It’s a fascinating discussion…that usually gets hung up on when is a fertilized egg a person and what definition of viability are you using? The fact that science and technology have reduced the need for people to run machines that elevate us to higher an higher standards of living kind of negates our hardwired evolutionary desire to see ourselves in the faces of our offspring.

But our instinct won’t change bc we want it to.

1 Like

I’m afraid a poor pregnant woman could be easy target for someone who thinks they shouldn’t have a baby. Spend more government money on subsized birth control instead of abortion. Or childcare, or education.

1 Like

Sure. Convince them that all the social programs are in place, WIC, SNAP and whatnot…and lock them into the lower echelons of the economy. Then she’ll learn from people more experienced with the system that it gets better and you get more services if you have another one.

I think child care is the key. That means Mom can work and we all know work is good.

I know quite a few women who had abortions, some due to age (too old or too young), others due to feeling that the time was not right. Some went on to have children, others already had children, some never had children. I don’t know any who expressed great anguish over it; at most, some would occasionally wonder how things would have turned out, but that’s about it.

1 Like