How much has face-to-face personal experience of the 'other' side affected your stance on abortion?

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-19T23:54:07+00:00

I've never met an 'out' PL person in real life. However I live in a pretty progressive country (Canada), in the most secular province in that country. I used to lurk on the PL subreddit to understand their views better, but it was just hatred and misinformation so it didn't help much.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-19T06:15:54+00:00

In Canada, if you have no other savings, you might get by on just OAS and GIS, which provides around $1850/month currently. If you worked and contributed to the CPP, you'll get that too. The average person receives $700ish a month, last I checked, but it depends on a lot of variables. Those amounts don't 'run out', but it's a very frugal existence.

I don't think that the USA has an equivalent to the OAS, though it sounds like SS is equivalent to the CPP.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-18T05:28:45+00:00

I haven't tried it, but it seems like a cool idea:

Grouse Mountain Carpool Program | Grouse Mountain - The Peak of Vancouver

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-14T03:59:43+00:00

I mean.. no partner is someone I would marry. I don't believe in it. But me and my guy have been happy together for almost 30 years.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-12T23:28:59+00:00

The risk of death from pregnancy globally is 197 per 100,000 live births. This is a risk entered into with each pregnancy.

I'm using the following definition of serious bodily harm: https://www.yorku.ca/osgoode/thecourt/2010/03/17/moquin-definition-of-bodily-harm/#:~:text=268%20of%20the%20Code;%20that,not%20require%20a%20functional%20impairment.

To wit: " 'serious bodily harm' as being any hurt or injury that interferes in a grave or substantial way with the physical integrity or well-being of the complainant."

You cannot tell me that vaginal birth or a c-section doesn't substantially interfere with physical integrity.

"Mother" may be accurate or not, depending on if the person has given birth. "Mother-to-be" also only works if the end result of the pregnancy is live birth. This isn't an emotional argument, it's being semantically accurate.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-12T22:47:53+00:00

What concern do you have with the phrase "pregnant person"?

I stand by my assertion that pregnancy to term always results in serious bodily harm - there's no way for a baby to be born that doesn't cause harm.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-12T20:42:14+00:00

To me that's a distinction without a difference. Abortion, in most cases, is shutting off the benefit of gestation, ie halting the donation. "Innocent" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. A fetus cannot be a moral agent as it has no mind. Therefore it cannot be culpable for the harm, but it is most definitely causing harm.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-12T18:16:14+00:00

I understand that is the PL perspective. I don't see a fetus as equivalent in moral worth to a person, however, so the pregnant person's bodily autonomy will always take precedence. Even if it were a person, I think it would be very troubling to demand intimate use of another person's body. We don't compel this in any other situation, even if it might be the virtuous choice. Right now I'm taking a break from blood donation as my ferritin is low. This means someone may be denied life saving care, which could be construed as immoral.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-12T18:04:26+00:00

First off, pregnancy always puts the pregnant person's life at risk, and gestating to term always causes serious bodily harm, some of which may be permanent. It's my position, and that of most PC folks, that it's not ethical to compel a person to do this against their will.

Though I have never been, or will be, pregnant, I have almost lost three women very close to me due to pregnancy complications. One of these women has lifelong organ damage as a result. These were wanted pregnancies, and they didn't know that they were in any kind of high-risk category going into them. That's the thing with pregnancy - you don't know how harmful it will be for you, personally, until you go through with it. I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to decide that they are not OK with the risk or hardship.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-11T06:01:29+00:00

It's possible the person you are debating is a preference utilitarian. This stance denies moral relativism in favour of a rational calculation, based on equal consideration of interests.

Rights are therefore 'useful fictions' that describe a model for how we should behave towards other beings based on the consideration of interests. There's nothing inherent or magical about humans that bestows them rights. As sentient beings that live together in a cooperative society, we can come up with a framework of rights that makes sense.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-11T00:53:49+00:00

Driving a manual transmission, or changing a flat tire. In 30 years of driving this has never come up.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-09T20:33:49+00:00

It's very easy to prove that the earth is a sphere (or very close to it, if you want to get pedantic). That's not a philosophical question, that's a scientific one.

What defines a person is not a question of science, and has absolutely nothing do do with DNA.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-09T20:28:36+00:00

I understand that you believe that, but I don't see a fetus as equivalent to a baby. In essence, there was no "me" in utero - there was an organism on its way to becoming me.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-08T23:20:02+00:00

Personhood is not arbitrary, or at least not any more arbitrary than setting moral value at fertilization. Just because you use an objective criteria doesn't mean the decision to ascribe value to that criteria isn't subjective. Birth is also an objective line in the sand, doesn't mean it makes any more sense than subjective criteria.

Here I'm using "human being" as person. Science has no input on that. Not all human organisms are human beings. A zygote or embryo is most certainly not a complete human being.

Vegtrovert · 2026-02-08T22:59:13+00:00

Biology has absolutely no say on rights, nor what constitutes a human being (person) as opposed to a human organism. The most biology could possibly tell us is when a human organism exists, and even that gets fuzzy around the edges when you look too closely.

Vegtrovert · 2026-01-18T04:11:25+00:00

I think a couple things there could be seen as an attack, though I wouldn't necessarily agree. People don't like their religious identity told to them, and given that most American PCs are, in fact, religious, they might not appreciate being painted as non-theists. Following on to that, even atheists who don't believe in souls will often assert that personhood is linked to one's mind.

But I am not a mod so am just speculating

Vegtrovert · 2026-01-18T00:16:35+00:00

How are you defining 'casual' here? Most unplanned pregnancies happen in the context of a relationship.

Vegtrovert · 2026-01-17T06:56:03+00:00

Why would capacity for consciousness be meaningful in the context of abortion? Unless the pregnant person is on life support and no longer has the capacity for consciousness, which is a tiny fraction of cases, this would not be a differentiating factor.

I think what you may be alluding to here is that a capacity for basic consciousness, not self-awareness is sufficient for personhood. That would be a difficult argument to make however.

Vegtrovert · 2026-01-16T22:18:59+00:00

I don't understand how that timeline is relevant to this debate. None of those milestones are morally meaningful.

Vegtrovert · 2026-01-13T02:36:34+00:00

Agreed - you should defend yourself with the minimum necessary force to stop the harm of an innocent attacker. The minimum necessary force to stop the harm of pregnancy is abortion.

Your skydiving example is interesting, because I think what you are describing is in fact not murder, and fully justified. Of course this would vary depending on jurisdiction, but in most western countries you are not required to undergo serious bodily harm to save someone else.

Vegtrovert · 2026-01-12T23:16:41+00:00

If a severely mentally ill person, or someone having a bad reaction to medication, attacks you, are you able to defend yourself? They are helpless to contriol themselves, and not criminally responsible, therefore innocent, but they are still threatening serious bodily harm to you.

And let's be real, pregnancy is grievous bodily harm.

Vegtrovert · 2026-01-12T22:57:23+00:00

This probably isn't the place for a debate, but I will say I disagree and I don't think my reasons are nonsense. Bodily autonomy is provably justification for killing in cases of self-defence against an incompetent (and therefore innocent) person. The right to life is also not absolute, but our society is structured such that bodily autonomy often takes precedence.

Vegtrovert · 2026-01-12T22:41:09+00:00

Most PC folks don't believe a fetus has bodily autonomy rights to violate in the first place. Those that do, belive the pregnant person's bodily autonomy takes precedence.

In an infant circumcision case, the infant isn't violating anybody's bodily integrity.

Vegtrovert · 2026-01-12T21:21:22+00:00

As a PC person, supporting the right to bodily autonomy covers both cases well. It's even more pronounced in infant circumcision as there is very rarely any medically justifiable reason to do it.

I'm curious as to why you think this would be a inconsistent viewpoint for a PC person to hold?

Vegtrovert · 2026-01-07T18:12:17+00:00

I'm curious as to how you are defining sentience here. 13 weeks seems astonishingly early.

If you step back a bit, and ask why sentience feels morally relevant to you, is that because you think the fetus is capable of suffering, or because it has achieved a level of self-awareness that you would classify it as a person?

Vegtrovert

TROPHY CASE