The abortion debate always misses the mark

submitted by orthowire from self.whatever

Most people fail to understand the core, fundamental issue of the abortion debate.

The abortion debate has two facets: the legal question and then the ethical question.

The legal debate is what the Supreme Court was debating and is an overall uninteresting, though consequential, debate. The legal debate's fundamental question is whether or not the constitution, as it's written, guarantees a right to abortion. It's that simple. It does not discuss whether abortion should be legal or not. It is an uninteresting and purely academic question.

The ethical debate is what matters and asks: "Is abortion ethically acceptable and therefore should be legal?" This is what most people think of when they think of the abortion debate.

The answer to this question can be found by answering two simple questions. For some reason, discussions surrounding abortion almost invariably ignore these two core questions and discuss irrelevant and unimportant matters.

The two core questions are as follows: 1) Does the fetus deserve any protection or rights? 2) Does the fetus have a right to depend on its mother for its survival?

I think most people, if being earnest, would say "yes" to question 1. Almost everyone would agree that drinking copious alcohol while pregnant is morally wrong, because of the potential harm to the fetus. This demonstrates that almost everyone would agree that the fetus deserves some protection.

And so, the abortion debate rests on question number 2. This is a hard question and the only one that matters. And for some reason the abortion debate always seems to miss the mark.

all 16 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]proc0 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The main reason progressives disagree is because they have no moral foundation (moral relativism) and also they don't value personal accountability. These two differences create most of the gap. One side believes in morality that somehow transcends humans whether that is God or just solid principles, while the other side tends to be nihilistic and hedonistic (life of pleasure and no purpose).

[–]Insider 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Another reason is because you're also impeding on the rights of the mother by forcing a birth. Under a lot of situations, it can ruin the life of the mother or the child will be given up for adoption where they have a high chance of being abused or trafficked through government pedo rings.

Word on the street is that the government's running low on children to traffic. The main reason for abortion is financial distress. With both increasing financial distress and no abortions, that's a huge uptick of supply for the pedo rings. Both church and state love fucking kids.

[–]Chipit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Are we a civilized society or do we mass murder babies?

Abortion is inexorably tied up with eugenics. Planned Parenthood was founded by a woman whose goal was to prevent the birth of undesirables.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nothing wrong with eugenics.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Your mother should have swallowed you.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://saidit.net/s/politics/comments/9f7k/justice_thomas_calls_for_end_to_legislating_from/yeru

[–]ID10T 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well said. I would add 3. When does life begin?

Does it begin at inception when the fetus is basically just a clump of cells, when the cells are greater in number and organized, when a heartbeat is detectable, when the fetus is potentially viable outside the womb...

But I agree that your number 2, does the fetus have a right to force the mother to bear it, is a fundamental question.

There's also the question of the viability of the pregnancy, e.g. should a woman be forced to bear an ectopic pregnancy. And the question of whether it's ethical to force the birth of a child that has terrible birth defects, e.g. the child will survive but be brain dead, a vegetable requiring lifelong life support.

[–]jet199Instigatrix 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't care when life begins.

The sperm and egg are both living cells. The skin cells you shed everyday were living cells.

Personhood is the question not life. Humans don't give a shit about the life of cells, or even whole animals, in most other circumstances.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I hear this too much. You're arguing semantics, nothing says the Supreme Court justices have to be constitutional purists. The practical outcome of all this hubalub is abortion becomes widely illegal, that's what matters, and that's what people get.

These nuanced arguments are for the birds.

[–]orthowire[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You are both wrong and confused. You are wrong because you misunderstand what the role of the Supreme Court is, which is constitutional adjudication. The following sentence is taken directly from the first page of Alito's opinion, which confirms this: "The critical question is whether the Constitution, properly understood, confers a right to obtain an abortion." Their decision was based on arguments aimed only to answer this question.

You are confused because you misunderstand my argument. It seems that both you and I agree that the "critical question" posed and debated by the Supreme Court and what the constitution says about abortion is an uninteresting, though consequential, academic debate. The question of whether abortion should be legal or illegal is what people care about and what the focus of this post was.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I stand by my point. I don't find yours compelling.

[–]Chipit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

nothing says the Supreme Court justices have to be constitutional purists.

The job of the Court is literally to interpret the Constitution.

These nuanced arguments are for the birds.

LOL sure let's all discard thinking and use emotions instead! Because that always works out so well.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The job of the Court is literally to interpret the Constitution

Exactly, but I'm saying they don't have to be purists, there's different schools of thought on how to properly interpret the constitution.

LOL sure let's all discard thinking and use emotions instead! Because that always works out so well.

Just as the nuance of different methods of interpretation was apparently not conveyed effectively in this conversation, it is so often lost elsewhere as well.

[–]NuclearBadger 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The only time it's ok is rape victims after a missed period.

Waiting 7 months before deciding you don't want it is absolutely disgusting.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Everything is rape now already

[–]rubberbiscuit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

US courts are not supposed to legislate. Roe v Wade overruled legislation. It's as simple as that. These freaks protesting at the courts should be directing their efforts to state legislators. If 70% of us support abortion (according to MSNBC but why would I trust their figure?) it should be easy to pass some abortion rights in every state.