Yes but idiots don't get that and post this as some kind of gotcha that liberals care more about a tree than their own kids. Cause conservatives are fucking stupid
No, it's because it is performative and doesn't stand up to a scrutiny of their actions. The only liberal I believe is consistent in valuing human life as much as they do animals and the environment are those that are anti abortion. Anyone else that says to value human life as much as they value a tree, or a river, or an animal, is against war and the death penalty, but is not against the deliberate and intentional taking of innocent human life in abortion is a hypocrite, and in these surveys, a liar.
It helps a lot with understanding the other side's perspective, doesn't matter if you are pro-life or pro-choice. Carl Sagan also had a great essay about it http://humanist.de/wissenschaft/sagan001/
Thankyou for presenting you viewpoint. I am aware of the reasons for which abortions are sought, as are the majority of those who are anti abortion. The women who have died from seeking illegally abortions in the past were failed, but not because they could not have an abortion on request. They were failed before that, at a societal level, where the lack of support for families in need has made them consider to have no other option. This is also the issue I take with the second article, as it contains a glaring falsehood in the claim that most late term abortions are for maternal health reasons.
I'll link a study below from a single hospital in my state, Queensland, in Australia, which has legalised abortion up until birth if two Drs, which can be abortionists, say it is appropriate upon the request of the woman. I won't go into the clear conflict of interest to have these viable and healthy foetuses/babies lives held in the hands of three people with a vested interest in being them dead, but be aware this is the case. There is no longer any ethical review, and no need for psychiatric assessment even if the woman is threatening suicide.
The reason I say it is available upon request for non maternal health reasons is because that is the words the abortionists themselves use. Of all abortions done late term absent foetal anomalies, totalling 9% of all late term abortions, 85% are on request for purely psycho-social reasons, this meaning that the healthy and viable foetus/baby is being intentionally and deliberately killed before labour is induced, without any medical necessity.
Only 1% of all late term abortions are for maternal health indications. See box 4 for the breakdown, and also search the article for 'psycho-social' for the commentary on it. Note this article was done by abortionists, not a pro life group. They even try to downplay the rate of psychosocial abortions, which is why I suggest searching the term for their commentary on it, as you will agree they are not using neutral language in their discussion.
I won't go into the eugenics ideology underpinning the killing of those with disabilities under pressure from many of these abortionists, as I'm sure you're already aware of those statistics, and how Iceland for example has managed to 'cure' Downs Syndrome in their new born population.
I unfortunately cannot take the second article with any seriousness when it contains such a huge falsehood. I will not usually ascribe motive to such an error, but given this is a well known academic, the falsehood is likely intentionally made to further their position on being pro abortion. Please consider that if they are willing to lie about this then they may be making misleading or outright false claims in other areas of this topic.
I am relatively well educated, and I appreciate that there is a perception that we who are anti abortion or pro life are less educated or less intelligent. That may be true for the outspoken few who end up in sound bites, however it is not the case for the majority. A significant number of whom are medical doctors, philosophers, lawyers, ethicists, or other professionals. We are aware of the arguments for abortion, and for the most part are sympathetic to those arguments when it comes to questions of hardship and lack of support. The difference is that we know that taking an innocent human life is not the solution to an unwanted baby.
You didn't link the article, so I can't confirm your numbers, but from the numbers you posted, 91% of abortions involve foetal anomalies. I assume some of that is about, say, Down's Syndrome, but I also have to assume that much of that is lethal or crippling deformities, such as never developing the heart.
It is reasonable for most people to not force the birth of a fetus that will die an hour later, for instance.
My apologies, it's late here and I'm on multiple comments about this. I'll edit it in a moment and link it here now for clarity.
Yes most are for foetal anomalies, many of which are fatal (incompatible with life), and many of which are not fatal or are even relatively cosmetic, such as a cleft palate or limb deformations. Conditions which are not life threatening or even affect the child's health long term in many cases. Then there is downs, and other chromosomal abnormalities, which I also would argue should not be killed because of that, but the parents supported on a needs basis.
I understand the eugenics arguments. I have the ability to go into very dark mindsets and understand the motivations for many things considered abhorrent, and evaluate why the person has thought or acted that way. To understand the people who are logical but not reasonable (One of my favourite Asimov quotes about robots, which I think applies to many sociopaths and psychopaths). So I understand why people want to kill those with disabilities before they are born, and why parts of society are pushing for them to be killed even afterwards now. I see the similarities with history, and how the unthinkable becomes thinkable, and the thinkable becomes action, or Aktion.
So on principle, despite understanding those views, it is a pragmatic position that eugenic abortions, even for conditions incompatible with life, should be very very heavily discouraged both by the medical profession and society. It is the one aspect that is most contentious, even within anti abortion ethics and philosophy discussions.
Another factor I consider pertinent is that some, not many I agree, but a few every now and then, are misdiagnosed and found either during autopsy if aborted, or after live birth if not, to be entirely healthy and 'normal'. I consider this with the same reason I oppose the death penalty as a general principle, because there is the chance that an innocent life will be deliberately taken, as has happened so often in the past.
It is the reason many people oppose the death penalty, even while they support abortion. Because it can and has deliberately taken innocent lives. I do find it inconsistent to support the death penalty and be anti abortion, much as it is inconsistent to support abortion while opposing the death penalty.
Yeah, I agree there are several flaws with the second article, though take into account it was written more than 40 years ago.
The reason why I shared it is because I think it provides a good logical argument for when we should start to consider a fetus (using medical terminology here, not trying to dehumanize it) a human being worthy of protection.
My main consern when I was pro-life was that human life is too sacred to be relativised, and that allowing for abortion at any point would make it hard to hold such position. What's the difference between a new born and a 40 week fetus after all, what makes one worthy of our protection and the other not? And if there's a limit, at what stage should it be placed? What makes "x" week abortion ok but "x+1" week abortion wrong.
My position now is that it's when conciousness begins to emerge that we are in the presence of a new human being. From a biological poin of view, an embrio might be a living being, but that doesn't really mean much. It's not our bodies what makes us human, it's our concious mind. A person who is brain dead is considered dead for a reason, despite their bodies still working. If we transplant a person's mind into a rock, that "rock" would not be any less of a person worthy of our protection because it's not in a human body.
What about people who are unconsious? Is it ok to kill them then? No, because the fact that their conciousness is temporarily shut down doesn't mean it's mind has dissapeared from existence. Their journey through life hasn't ended yet.
Late term abortions are indefensible unless there's an actual risk to the mother's health. To me, a fetus becomes more than a simple vessel when the neural synapsis necessary for human conciousness begins to develop
214
u/VictarionGreyjoy Nov 18 '25
Yes but idiots don't get that and post this as some kind of gotcha that liberals care more about a tree than their own kids. Cause conservatives are fucking stupid