Questions to the U.S women here about Roe v. Wade

How do you feel about Roe v. Wade being overturned ?
Do you agree with the idea that abortion is by-default immoral no matter the circumstances ?

 

When you talk about 'abortion', I imagine you refer to late-stage abortion, which I agree with you on the fact that it's immoral and can be considered murder.

But this is the Roe v. Wade law:
As the supreme court case that held that the Constitution protected a woman’s right to an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus. On the basis of the right to privacy, Roe gave women an unrestricted right to abortion during the first three months of pregnancy.

Late-stage pregnancy which is completely barbaric, wasn't allowed under Roe. Unless the mother's life was in jeopardy, and even then there is still the possibility of C-section.

That's why I will disagree with you, abortion isn't necessarily murder. It depends mainly on the stage of the pregnancy, a recently fertilized egg isn't a 'baby'. When the egg is fertilized it turns into a zygote and stays as a lump of multiplying cells for 3 to 4 weeks, it turns into an embryo then a fetus and finally an unborn child. In the early stages from 0 to 4/3 weeks, abortion can't technically be 'murder', because at this stage we aren't talking about anything more than a non-sentient lump of cells.

Fair enough, but even if we accept all abortion to be murder, it still doesn't deny that regardless of whether the woman's life is in danger or not, abortion would be technically still be 'murder' and the moral dilemma remains unresolved.

Unless you want to argue that the woman's life being in danger makes abortion less of a 'murder' than it would be otherwise. Which is bizzare, it doesn't make any sense to consider a case of 'infanticide' less criminal if we accept it as such by default. If we accept that all abortion is murder, then no abortion can ever be seen as moral.

First, it would be straight up saying that all abortion is 'barbaric murder', and in the same breath contradict this by denying it's barbarity in a different context. It's escalating a situation about removing an undevelopped lump of cells to protect a woman, into a situation where we'll be forced to sacrifice one sentient life to save another. How is that supposed to resolve anything ? It's even worse.

It's far better to draw a reasonable line concerning abortion, by that I mean it shouldn't exceed the 4 to 5 first weeks of pregnancy. This way, women suffering from high risk pregnancies won't be denied protection, and rape victims will absolved from the trauma of carying their rapist's child, all while avoiding any unethical ramifications.

Look at this story , this ten years old rape victim was denied abortion. Because the absurd state laws are based on the premise that 'life starts at conception' (which is technically false, sentient life doesn't start at conception), thus prohibit all abortion with no exception for rape or incest victims. Do you think this is reasonable ?

 

I support abortion under certain conditions, mainly depending on the stage of pregnancy. As far as biology is concerned, life as we aim to protect it doesn't automatically start at conception.

As a side-note, Margaret Sanger, the one who started planned parenthood wasn't a racist eugenist who conspired to exterminate the black population. She was a feminist activist who tried to help the southern black populations struggling with poverty to have a stable life and more opportunities. MLK praised her efforts and considered her an important ally in the civil rights movement, you can look at this paper detailing MLK's position on both Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood.

 

Yes, I'm aware of this. And even if we consider your premise, it doesn't automatically resolve the moral dilemma implied by viewing abortion as 'murder' by default.

 

Please don't remind me about the cringes I've got from watching those clowns. Ben Shapiro, the same guy who said that 'supposedly for the sake of the argument, if climate change leads to flooding houses, then people can just sell their houses and move'. Sell them to who ? Aquaman ?

I have a hard time believing anyone can take them seriously. That said, I doubt any of them has offered any substancial evidence to 'debunk' my arguments. All they do is form empty, wordy, arguments that don't even address the main issues. Of course, one of them being the iconic climate change moment of Shapiro.

 

Also, Shapiro said that life 'starts at conception', which is wrong if we take into consideration science. It's not possible to see a zygote or a lump of cells as equally 'living' as an unborn child or a newborn unless your judgment is clouded by religious beliefs.

 

This is the same woman who claimed to formerly work for planned parenthood and shifted positions later in life. In Trump 2020 campaign she said in her speech that Margaret Sanger was a racist and all the rest, but she didn't say that Sanger played a key role in the civil rights movement alongside MLK. That's one deliberate lie by omission.

After Ben, that's the second one whose whole argument is based on misinformation. Of course, there's her graphic description of an ultra-sound abortion which supposedly happened after the first 4 weeks, which I agree sounds immoral but it still doesn't mean that all abortion should be banned.

I'm not justifying murdering babies, you really don't pay attention to my arguments. Do you think a zygote is a baby ? Or a lump of non-sentient flesh is a baby ? Because it's absurd to think abortion is any of these two early phases counts as 'murdering babies'.

 

If their argument is based on the statement that life starts at conception, then I don't see how they might be different from Shapiro.

BTW, did you see the story of the 10 years old who was initially denied abortion in Ohio ? It seems that you didn't provide enough attention to this.

 

I asked her how the moral dilemma can be resolved if we accept that all abortion is murder, even if the mother's life is in danger. It wouldn't make it less of a murder, only a situation where one sentient life is given more priority, despite initially believing that both 'lives' are equally valuable.

Why, in the situation where the mother's life is in danger, it will be OK to dismiss the value of the fetus's life ? If abortion is about murdering a life equal to the mother's.

 

I did listen to conservative talking points, and their whole premise is based on the idea that life starts at conception. the one I remembered the most was Shapiro because of his annoying, cartoonish voice and his rather stupid stands.

I understand and acknowledge the reasonable points of the conservative argument, mainly that abortion has the potential to be unethical and barbaric. This is not something I can disagree with. But at the same time, I can't accept that aborting during the first 4 weeks of pregnancy counts as 'murdering' a baby. Because a zygote isn't a baby nor is a blastocyst, and neither is sentient or has the ability to experience physical pain. It's not accurate to qualify it as a 'baby' yet at this point.

The problem comes mostly from the conservative side, they cling to the idea that human life begins at conception despite how wrong it is. And they refuse to accord any credit to a solution offering a humane middle ground while taking into account all related ethical concerns. They want to hear none of it, as their position is mainly grounded on religious belief and sentimentalism.

There is also the lies they tell about Sanger, that she was a racist while MLK felt a kinship to her and supported her endeavors. They don't even accurately describe her position and claim she was pro-abortion while she clearly wasn't and devoted most of her life to birth control activism.

 

I know you aren't really invested in this. But from a scientific point of view, do you agree that aborting a 0 to 4 weeks old zygote can be seen as murder ? I'm not talking about late-stage abortion here, because I made my point obvious.

 

I am repulsed by late stage abortion too, don't be worried. And I am also repulsed by the fact that a 10 years old rape victim was told to carry her pregnancy to term despite the obvious risk to her life and fertility. This is what made me understand that this 'all abortion is murder' should be revised and a reasonable line needs to be drawn.

 

I noticed the videos talked about all stages of abortion, and I still stand by my point. Abortion isn't necessarily murder. It's all about the stage of the pregnancy.