To be frustrated that it's impossible to have a discussion on abortion ethics....

[coconuttella]

On one side there's those who believe an embryo has fully human rights from conception, and on the other those who believe the foetus has no rights at all until birth.

Both sides seem to put forward their position forcefully and dogmatically as though they're stating the obvious, and anyone who thinks the ethics surrounding it may be a more complex is shouted down, especially by some on the pro-chioice side who seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with their stance as a misogynistic slave of the patriarchy.

Personally, I'm not in either camp and find the ethical questions complex, with this being brought home the other evening when I was reading that Incas didn't regard babies and toddler as having human status until the age of 3-4 (where they had a ceremony to mark this rite of passage) and no longer totally dependent on their mothers and past the most perilous time wrt child mortality. It made me question again my thoughts on when we should a human should acquire rights, and frustrated me that any discussion on this immediately degenerates into a slanging match.

The rape exemption is really problematic.

Either you just take a woman's word for it, in which case hurrah but then it's pointless.

Or it's tied to a prosecution. Fine in theory but:

1. it wouldn't be fair to anyone to rush through an investigation, charge and trial in a short enough time to rubber stamp a safe tx;
2. if you permit a tx based on a pending case, what happens if it's dropped? Implant a replacement embryo?
3. a real danger that society would say "she said it was rape so she could get a tx". I mean, some loving men would encourage their wives to accuse them of rape to enable them to get the tx they (she) wanted. That would really muddy the waters regarding rape reports and convictions.

And that's before we look at a pp's excellent point that support for rape exemption proves it's not about the life of the unborn child, but punishing the behaviour of the pregnant woman.

@MrsHathaway, exactly, that's the problem with mowgeli's position. It's actually very likely that a woman will be discovering her pregnancy and asking for a termination at the exact time when the police are investigating what happened and she won't want to be undergoing further scrutiny about it. Women just won't say anything.

MrsHathaway, or 4) is it the right sort of rape? Sorry: such a grim thing to say, but I'd assume a society which requires women to stand before an abortion jury would probably have similarly retrogressive views on sexual violence. Was the woman's behaviour correct? Is she of good reputation? Was she drunk, or dressed suggestively? Has she slept with this man voluntarily on previous occasions? In this kind of society, it would be no great surprise to find women are supposed to take a share of the blame for their own assault.

(And lets not forget there are people like Todd Akin who suggest that woman rarely conceive through 'legitimate' rape; that their bodies shut down. Conception may then indicate consent.)

A 10 year old girl, pregnant by the result of a rape, was forced to give birth by CS. Her parents wanted the pregnancy to be terminated. In court she had to be represented by her parents due to her age.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/17/10-year-old-rape-victim-denied-abortion-gives-birth-baby-girl/

Also to Mittens1969

Just caught up this thread again and read about the panel idea.

Just lost for words totally and utterly lost for words.

Maisypoos on the first page you state it's that people are either pro choice or anti choice. I could also say it's a debate of pro life (keep the baby or fetus) or anti life (kill the fetus or baby).
Hearing these terms, that people are actually anti life (many here who are pro choice), is harder to hear than stating you are pro choice (you get to choose life or you get to choose death for your baby).
I have to agree with the OP that people cannot debate this. People sit so firmly in their camps and cannot see what the other is saying. I think the arguments around this are also driven by fear. There are many people who have had an abortion who regret it, and this now is a sore spot for them. So in my opinion there are people who stand firmly shouting pro choice for "cells" and not a baby, because it's too hard to face that making a choice means ending a baby or another individual's life. Imagine that we do die and then one day we do face these folk that we aborted and they say why? Why did you end it for me?
It's so controversial that we are not allowed to say these things or raise truth because there is a lot of hurt involved and people are incredibly defensive (defending their stance).
Truth is we will die one day and just because we can stand firmly on earth and say I am aborting cells and not a baby, there actually is no real evidence until we die for us to see who and what and even possibly converse and be challenged by those we aborted. (Yes we might also stand on earth today and say when I die I will just disappear into nothing and see no one, but there is no real evidence of this until we all die).
The thing is we don't have to think about all that now. So the main job of pro choice is arguing base solely on the argument it's my body and my choice. Not a strong argument when considering there is potentially a much bigger life and death picture. We will all have to wait and see.

What absolute and unmitigated drivel, Firefries

Maisypooson the first page you state it's that people are either pro choice or anti choice. I could also say it's a debate of pro life (keep the baby or fetus) or anti life (kill the fetus or baby

Pro choice = a woman has a CHOICE whether to continue with a pregnancy (so in my situation as someone who is pro life, i have the choice to exercise my views)

Anti choice = a woman does not have a choice to make that decision.

People who are pro choice are not anti-life (even by your definition) because they are not encouraging people to terminate pregancies. They are not saying 'yey kill blastocycts, embryos & foetuses'.

Under pro-choice, nobody is forced into a decisiom.
Under anti-choice, women are forced to continue pregnancies.

Again Lairy you say if they are pro life they are anti choice. Fair enough and it's easy to see someone like that isn't it. Through that perspective - that they don't want someone else to have choices (and hey how dare they take my choice from me?)
Forgetting that pro life is also a very positive stance.
We could also say if they are pro choice then they are anti life. Anti life is death. It's wanting death for another human being. That's harder to hear I think. But it's ignored and instead the focus always comes back to choice. I get to have the choice. It's my body, and my choice. Don't take my choice from me. That perspective or that argument.
Interestingly it's a very similar stance that the folk in the States take on guns. Many people around the world do not understand why people want to carry guns around with them. Outside of this argument they just say, hey lots more people die because you all carry your guns around with you.
But looking at it the argument here is the same. Its all about choice. They want the choice to have a gun or whatever weapon they want on them to protect themselves if they have to. That's the USA. They are built on rights. They have rights and choices. Yet many in the UK cannot see this and are against it and the mentality to carry guns. But it's the same really on abortion. People cry out for the choice to end a life.

Yes Lairy maybe, but until you and I die we won't really know what happens, and we don't know the fate of cells, fetuses or aborted babies.

Anti life is death. It's wanting death for another human being. That's harder to hear I think.
But being in favour of choice is not the same as being anti life.
Being in favour of choice means thay someone is able to decide for themselves. So whilst I would choose not to terminate, it's not for me to judge a woman who does.

Then we get to the crux, terminating a pregnancy isn't killing a human being.
I had a suspected chemical pregnancy a few months back when TTC. It wasn't a human being. It was a group of cells. A group of cells I would have loved to develop into a baby, but they were not a human being.

Even if I did belive that life begins at conception, it's not for me to tell others thry are murdering humans because that is biologically not true.

But it's ignored and instead the focus always comes back to choice.
It has to. Women are not incubators for babies.

Forgetting that pro life is also a very positive stance

It is not a positive stance, and its not pro-life.

People cry out for the choice to end a life

No they don't, since it isn't a life.

Firefries Do you believe in capital punishment?

Do you believe that a woman who has an abortion should be imprisoned?

Do you think it's okay to kill thousands of people in war?

Firefries

Do you believe that sperm is a life giving?

Maisypops saying to someone who is pro choice isn't pushing an agenda on anyone if they say they are anti life. It's just someone else saying I am not anti life, I am pro life. If I am pro life I am not anti choice as you say. (You cannot take one away from the other tho pro choice or anti choice, or pro life and anti life). You either see "choice" or "life".
We are all responsible for ourselves.

We shouldnt have to force others to believe or support one view or the other. That is the stance of pro choice tho I think isn't it? It's a choice. Don't take the choice off me or anyone else. So with pro choice you believe you have the choice and any pro lifer clearly doesn't want you to have the choice at all. And there's the offence.
Like with guns, either you want guns or you dont want guns. The person wanting a gun is merely stating I want the right to have my gun on me at all times. I am not saying everyone else should carry a gun, just me actually because I am pro guns.
Pro life (like pro guns) is not shouting from the rooftops that everyone else is wrong. It's a stance that as individuals they choose life not death of another human (or to carry a gun over not carrying a gun). That's pro life.
No one actually tells you if you are pro choice that you are killing the human. As pro choice you choose to hear that you might be killing another human being. That's the whole crux of it. Pro life states independently on their own, I am pro choice and I dont want to kill a baby. As a pro choicer it's when you pick up the offence and say well that must mean they are saying I am killing a human and obviously they are wrong and that's where the argument starts.
Just stay in your lane. If you are hundred percent convinced you are right and there is no baby and no life being killed then leave it be. You want your choice, and if I were pro life is merely want babies to have a life.

You either see "choice" or "life"

How ridiculous. You are imposing your ideas not discussing them. Please take your thrust elsewhere. This isn't a 'debate'.

As pro choice you choose to hear that you might be killing another human being. That's the whole crux of it.

As pro capital punishment you might choose to hear you will be in favour of killing another human being. Or you are in favour of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the name of war, including pregnant women, babies and children. Or being pro choice with guns, you are happy to shot the life out of another person.

How do you conflate these views with denying women the choice of having a termination.

Imagine that we do die and then one day we do face these folk that we aborted and they say why? Why did you end it for me? It's so controversial that we are not allowed to say these things or raise truth because there is a lot of hurt involved and people are incredibly defensive (defending their stance).

If people are defensive when you suggest that a terminated pregnancy will grow to maturity in a parallel dimension and eventually castigate them for their choices, it's because this scenario is expressly designed to guilt and trouble them. It's a purely speculative scenario set in a future beyond our comprehension, which is designed to influence behaviour in the actual, tangible world.

If you're genuinely interested in a debate, I have so many questions (really) about how this scenario functions (not, obviously, expecting an exhaustive factual account; just a more general sense of how this might be envisioned to work). But I suspect then I would be doing the debate wrong: people are allowed to cite faith as a justification for controlling people's behaviour, but it's seen as tasteless or improper to question the specifics of this faith too closely.

I have "Every Sperm Is Sacred" stuck in my head now.

God will make them pay/For each sperm that can't be found.

El Salvador. Once had limited reasons for abortion, now not so but still even they acknowledge that imprisoning women for still births and miscarriages is wrong.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/el-salvador-miscarriage-abortion-strictest-laws-in-world-sonia-t-bora-a7584671.html

Or do some people think that part of women's sexual freedom is a right to behave sexually in a way which may result in pregnancy, knowing abortion will always be available?

Actually, yes.

MrsHathaway Love that song

It was an oft used argument in Ireland re the abortion 'debate'/referendum.

Is every male who has a wank complicit in the destruction of human life?

As a committed Christian I can tell you I don't believe God micromanages conception, otherwise fatal fetal anomalies wouldn't exist, nor the vast majority of miscarriages.

I don't know when the soul begins to inhabit the body. But I'm absolutely certain with every fibre of my being that if an unborn baby has a soul, an aborted baby goes straight to heaven.

My faith isn't based on hatred and condemnation. It's based on the love of God and our compassion for our neighbours.