The difference there is no deception in suicide prevention.
As you can see in the screenshots in the article, the anti-abortion clinics do pose as abortion clinics, instead of providing the person with facts.
Google had to make an extra label for this saying “provides abortion” and “does not provide abortions” because it is impossible to tell.
I would have no problem with pro life sites showing up that are open about it. When you google “how to kill yourself”, the suicide hotline does not hide behind “5 easy steps to killing yourself”
Don’t abortion clinics do the same thing? Planned Parenthood isn’t called Planned Unparenthood. The whole abortion industry is based on euphemisms like your use of “choice” to avoid describing what’s really taking place.
Planned Parenthood isn't in the "abortion industry." The vast majority of its work is supplying birth control, STD testing, cancer screening, and a bunch of general health care for women and poor families. They're the ones that happen to have expertise working with adoption agencies, not pregnancy crisis centers.
Almost half of Planned Parenthood's funding comes from the government via Medicaid and due to the Hyde Act, none of it can even be used for abortions. Most of the rest of their funding is literally for family planning. It's in the name!
Next time you or a partner need some sort of reproductive services, whether that's condoms, an STD test, or prenatal vitamins, you can go to Planned Parenthood and get it for free nationwide. The only reason to go to your GP and use your insurance is its faster and the results go directly to your doctor.
Yes. Proponents of abortion (a neutral term) use terms that minimize the actions they are taking to deceive and lessen the guilt of what they are doing.
* terminating the life of a fetus isn't "infanticide" it's a "choice"
* an abortion clinic isn't "an execution center" it's "a medical center"
* people who are against abortion aren't "pro-life" they're "anti-choice"
* abortion isn't "child murder" it's "healthcare"
They do this to normalize their actions. If they spent one second contemplating what they are doing from a neutral point of view it would be terrifying. A la "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream".
Wow, it's incredible just how much you're warping language.
> terminating the life of a fetus isn't "infanticide" it's a "choice"
To make abortion sound worse, you redefine infanticide. Encyclopedia Britannica says: "infanticide, the killing of the newborn" - notice how being born is a necessary precondition?
> an abortion clinic isn't "an execution center" it's "a medical center"
Yes, just like any other place that does healthcare.
> people who are against abortion aren't "pro-life" they're "anti-choice"
Yes, you want to take people's choice away.
> abortion isn't "child murder" it's "healthcare"
Yes, because the child develops during pregnancy, it's not there from the moment of conception. Makes it pretty difficult to murder a child if there is no child yet.
But that's what you have to do to make your arguments work - there is no logical basis, so you have to warp everything around you to hopefully find some way to manipulate those around you.
Abortion clinics allow people to choose when to be parents...plan it out, so to speak.
Anti-choice entities actively lie in order to take this choice away.
Abortion is not killing, abortion is healthcare. Yes, I realize one's set of values will create disagreement on this, I'm not trying to build consensus here, but can't let such a statement about "killing" go uncommented on.
A fetus is a human organism (this is the consensus among biologists, including pro-choice ones). Induced abortion is killing. You can make arguments as to why this is justified, but that doesn’t change that it is taking a life.
This paper asks the wrong questions. Yes, a fertizilized egg is "alive" in the same way sperm is "alive". The paper essentially uses the question of when the development of a human begins to argue:
1. Anything living is wrong to kill.
2. Human embryos and early fetuses are living
3. Therefore, human embryos shouldn't be "killed"
#1 is clearly wrong, #2 is a misdirect, #3 leads to the author's desired conclusion as a result. That paper based on the presumption that "opponents" argue that fetuses are not biologically living organisms. Fertilized eggs and embryos are living human organisms certainly, but it's not a person yet. Is an egg a chicken? Is a seed a tree? Is a caterpillar a butterfly? Is a collection of human cells with the potential to become a human, human? I believe "no" to all of the above. Potential for development into a more complex living organism is not the same as being that other organism.
It can be both, just like assisted suicide. Not sure how this has any effect on my argument. Advertising for an assisted suicide clinic, no matter your views on assisted suicide, is not the same as advertising for a sucide hotline. I think this is a fair comparison.
I'm generally pro-choice but this reckless disingenuity employed by abortion advocates is appalling. An abortion is not as routine as having a skin tag removed. It is a serious, life-changing decision that ought to come with an appropriate level of counselling, reflection, and consideration.
The comment you’ve replied to didn’t compare it to getting a skin tag removed, they called it healthcare. Healthcare covers all sort of procedures, with various levels of moral weight attached.
Regardless, it is up to the patient how much counseling, reflection, and consideration they feel they need. If you get an abortion you ought to have the right to seek counseling before or after if you want, it is up to you.
I'm generally pro-choice but this reckless disingenuity employed by abortion advocates is appalling.
What exactly do you find "reckless disingenuity" about referring to an abortion as healthcare? Nothing about that signals recklessness. Healthcare can refer to "skin tag removal" as you mentioned, it can also refer to cancer treatments, emergency surgery, etc.
You're arguing against a straw man, like so many conservatives, who think people like me view abortion as skin tag removal. It is a major healthcare decision, it has major consequences, it's not trivial. Be appalled at thine own reckless interpretations.
You're trying to push your morality on everyone. It's fine if you consider abortion to be murder, but the majority doesn't. Google for anti-abortion stuff all you like! But don't make it show up on unrelated searches, if you don't also want the opposite to happen.
And China and India and Muslim countries. An absolutist aversion to abortion is a rather uniquely Christian position and the issue is not so hot outside of majority Christian countries and can be largely considered a peculiarly Christian matter. The second most negative view is probably in Buddhism (which, at least according to Wikipedia, also believes the foetus to be some form of a living human). Other religions may frown upon abortion and forbid it in some situations, but they still don't consider the foetus to be a person.
"Classical Hindu texts are strongly opposed to abortion:
one text compares abortion to the killing of a priest
another text considers abortion a worse sin than killing one's parents
another text says that a woman who aborts her child will lose her caste"
I didn't talk about opposing abortion, but about the absolutist view that considers abortion the killing of a person. For example, in Judaism abortion is forbidden in many cases, but not because it is considered killing a person (nor is it a worse offence than, say, lighting a match on the Sabbath). When Islam forbids abortion, it does not forbid it because the foetus is considered a person (until four months, at least). The absolutist position that a foetus is a person since conception or soon thereafter and therefore abortion is forbidden because it is akin to murder is a largely Christian belief (maybe Buddhist, too).
BTW, abortion is legal in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in more situations than it is in some American states.
Why do you keep using that word? Having a position isn't absolutist. Additionally, this is also the biological view on abortion (moral judgments on such acts as killing aside).
> BTW, abortion is legal in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in more situations than it is in some American states.
Abortion is more legal in America than Europe as a whole, as well. What does this signify? Absolutely nothing.
> When Islam forbids abortion, it does not forbid it because the foetus is considered a person (until four months, at least).
Sure, if you discount the Shia, Malikis, Ibadis, etc. And the rest are tend to be very prohibitive even before that point.
There's nothing peculiarly Christian about the Christian conception of life. Of the four major religions in terms of population, three share it, as do significant chunks of the fourth.
The portion of the population living under an abortion ban of under 10-12 weeks is around 5% in Europe (due to Poland) and closer to 15% in the US. These Americans live under legal restrictions that are otherwise almost entirely confined to Africa, South America, and Poland:
While Texas abortion law is stricter than Saudi Arabia's, it is still more lenient than Iran's or Madagascar's.
> Additionally, this is also the biological view on abortion
It is certainly not. A foetus is a living thing, but so is lettuce; or a tumour. Biology has no view on when the foetus becomes a person, i.e. a being with the same moral value as that of an actual live human. That is purely a question of spiritual faith.
Biology can tell us, however, when a foetus is a thing that can experience pain. The common view is at 24 weeks, but some think it could be as early as 12 weeks. But again, a mouse also feels pain and yet not considered a person.
> Sure, if you discount the Shia, Malikis, Ibadis, etc. And the rest are tend to be very prohibitive even before that point.
Again, prohibitive does not mean forbidden because it is murder. Islam forbids consuming alcohol and Judaism forbids tattoos or lighting a fire on Saturday -- to a stronger degree than they forbid abortion, BTW -- but they don't forbid these things, or abortion, because they are the same as or similar to murder.
> There's nothing peculiarly Christian about the Christian conception of life.
There certainly is. It is primarily Christianity that forbids abortion because of the belief that the foetus is a person at or close to conception. It's because of that the the issue takes on a particular vehemence where Christianity is popular.
> I call the position that abortion is forbidden because the foetus is a person and therefore abortion is akin to murder absolutist.
I know. It just has no relation to the actual meaning of absolutist.
> The portion of the population living under an abortion ban of under 10-12 weeks is around 5% in Europe (due to Poland) and closer to 15% in the US. These Americans live under legal restrictions that are otherwise almost entirely confined to Africa, South America, and Poland:
The geographically European portion of Russia alone accounts for around 15% of the continent's people, and Russia draws the line at 12 weeks. The next-most populous country, Germany, accounting for around another 10%, has not legalized abortion whatsoever, except in extenuating circumstances. Italy, accounting for another 8%, also draws the line at 12 weeks. If we play with the arbitrary 12-week line you've drawn, and raise it to, say, 14, we pull in France, Spain, and others.
> It is certainly not. A foetus is a living thing, but so is lettuce; or a tumour. Biology has no view on when the foetus becomes a person, i.e. a being with the same moral value as that of an actual live human. That is purely a question of spiritual faith.
This is kind of an interesting line of thinking. It stands to reason, then, that if we're talking about western countries nurtured by Platonic, Aristotelian, and Christian philosophical and religious traditions, it makes sense to preserve the notion of life that follows from them, the one that you're arguing against for some reason.
Pain is irrelevant to the question of humanity.
> Again, prohibitive does not mean forbidden because it is murder. Islam forbids consuming alcohol and Judaism forbids tattoos or lighting a fire on Saturday -- to a stronger degree than they forbid abortion, BTW -- but they don't forbid these things, or abortion, because they are the same as or similar to murder.
The Malikis, for instance, believe that a fetus is ensouled at the moment of conception. What's more, I think it's hard to make the argument that most peoples consider a fetus as something totally unrelated to human life. Maybe an inferior or developing case, but still worthy of respect, which is what I've seen more often than the laissez-faire attitude towards them that you ascribe to Judaism (which I am ignorant on, so I won't speak there). Is it possible that you're projecting your own cultural background on to others?
> There certainly is. It is primarily Christianity that forbids abortion because of the belief that the foetus is a person at or close to conception. It's because of that the the issue takes on a particular vehemence where Christianity is popular.
Again, three of the four biggest religions, together accounting for a simple majority of the global population, are in agreement. Additionally, another 15% or are irreligious, the majority of whom are likely from a cultural background founded on those religions.
> If we play with the arbitrary 12-week line you've drawn
The situation in the US is generally worse, and is a humanitarian situation that is concerning for us in Europe.
If you've ever been pregnant or known someone who has been, there's a huge difference between week 6 and week 12. 1 in 3 people only know they're pregnant after 6 weeks. That difference alone means that before 12 weeks you almost definitely know you're pregnant, but at 6 weeks you have a high chance of not even knowing.
> it makes sense to preserve the notion of life that follows from them, the one that you're arguing against for some reason.
I'm arguing against the peculiarly Christian definition of human life. Debates over Christianity are a defining feature of Western culture.
> Pain is irrelevant to the question of humanity.
I agree. It's mostly a question of how Christian you are (or influenced by Christianity).
> The Malikis, for instance, believe that a fetus is ensouled at the moment of conception
That may be the case, but I didn't say that the belief that a foetus is a person is solely Christian, just largely Christian (and, possibly, Buddhist).
> I think it's hard to make the argument that most peoples consider a fetus as something totally unrelated to human life
I didn't say it's totally unrelated to human life. Intentionally maiming one's finger, say, is also related to human life, but an observant Jew who would neither condone abortion nor self mutilation without good reason would still find it strange to think of a foetus or a finger as a baby.
> are in agreement
They are not in agreement that a foetus is a person at all. That is the only point I've been trying to make. And it is the religious belief that a foetus is a person that raises the temperature of that particular debate in majority Christian countries, even compared to other countries with traditions that may forbid abortion for reasons other than "fetal personhood"
> Is it possible that you're projecting your own cultural background on to others?
> there's a huge difference between week 6 and week 12. 1 in 3 people only know they're pregnant after 6 weeks. That difference alone means that before 12 weeks you almost definitely know you're pregnant, but at 6 weeks you have a high chance of not even knowing.
So now the line is 6 weeks? How many states does that apply to? Again, keep in mind that the most populous country in Western Europe restricts abortion completely.
> I'm arguing against the peculiarly Christian definition of human life. Debates over Christianity are a defining feature of Western culture.
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that this isn't particularly Christian. I'm not a Christian and agree with it, along with many others[1]. I'd go so far as to argue that the fetal personhood meme in Europe has less to do with psalm 139 than the cultural and philosophical traditions that Christianity inherited when grafted onto European civilization, in which there was already a notion of fetal personhood.
We know that in European antiquity abortion was uncommon; birth and then infanticide was preferred as safer for the mother, and both were seen as much the same thing. If we look at Rome, for example, abortion rights were commonly viewed as intrinsically granted by a father's right to kill his children. There were popular thinkers philosophical movements like stoicism that did draw such a distinction, of course, and their number included no less than Aristotle himself, up to a certain point in the pregnancy. We also have the works of Soranus of Ephesus which explain that many physicians would refuse to perform abortions on the basis that harming a child conflicted with the Hippocratic Oath. Soranus placed himself squarely in the "other camp", hardly extreme pro-choicers, but emphasizing that abortion should be performed by trained physicians in extenuating circumstances. The "safe, legal, and rare" of antiquity. This is, by the way, my own view as well.
What we see, historically, around the world is a general "devaluing" of human life as such compared with today. Practices like exposure were common. The infirm and the elderly could be killed much as children could. And this was reasonable. I put "devaluing" in quotes, because it was more an acceptance that sometimes individual lives had to be traded for the collective good. Those who consumed resources without contributing to their production could be fatal when times were hard. We can see coping mechanisms towards infanticide in stories about changelings and such. And I think that the "unpersoning" of the fetus is a similar coping mechanism. It's a way for those who are pushed into such circumstances to move on.
> They are not in agreement that a foetus is a person at all.
They are. This has been demonstrated for Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism, as well as sects of Islam. Your own insistence that they don't observe fetal personhood whatsoever is just as much an assertion of fact, and thus far hasn't been backed up.
> the most populous country in Western Europe restricts abortion completely.
Depending on how you define Western Europe, the most populous country is either Germany or the UK. Both offer abortion for practically any reason within 12 or 24 weeks, respectively, and for health reasons even later. BTW, the cost is covered by the state or statutory insurance (depending on need) in both countries.
> How many states does that apply to?
Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Wisconsin and quite a few others. About 15% of Americans.
> And I think that the "unpersoning" of the fetus is a similar coping mechanism.
I respect other people's spiritual beliefs, but you need to understand that as someone who grew up in a Jewish home, the thought that a foetus is a person sounds as foreign to me as the thought of a tree as an ancestral spirit or of a communion wafer transmuting into the body of Jesus. I know there are people who actually believe such things because of long traditions, but it's impossible for me to believe in them.
> Depending on how you define Western Europe, the most populous country is either Germany or the UK. Both offer abortion for practically any reason within 12 or 24 weeks, respectively, and for health reasons even later. BTW, the cost is covered by the state or statutory insurance (depending on need) in both countries.
I mean Germany, where abortion is illegal at all times by default. Exceptions are another thing, but if we’re talking about actual line-in-the-sand “abortion is now illegal at this point” then Germany draws that line at zero weeks. And accounts for a little over 10% of Europe’s population. Then there’s Poland and others which I’m sure can make up the difference.
The line that's drawn is that abortions are regularly performed in Germany up to 12 weeks for pretty much any reason, and later for health reasons. Yes, the way that law is stated is weird, but that is what it means in practice. As the WHO summarises it for non-Germans, "Abortion is legally permissible in Germany on request up to 12 weeks, and thereafter in certain circumstances."
There’s a funny, widespread phenomenon of people invoking cultural relativity and Christian particularism specifically on issues with the most cross-cultural consensus.
If the fake abortion centers advertised with a similar, up front, "why you shouldn't" message, it wouldn't be unethical. Their current practice is fraudulent.
Local humanist support groups or recommended atheist reading perhaps. Maybe a link to neutral questionnaire where you can figure how many (if any) and which gods would be suitable for you, before committing to any specific religion.
There's probably some elder god more in line with your ethics you overlooked after all.
I'm "pro-life" too and don't want to control ppl's bodies. I think that, from an evolutionary stand view, everyone is pro life :)
You comparison is completely bogus. Someone suic1dal is in need of help and support. Women who choose to have an ab0rtion is (not always) completely conscious of their choice when they get to the poine of looking for a clinic on Google.
The same could be said for anti-vaxx websites appearing first when searching for vaccine information, and creationist websites appearing first when searching for information on natural history. Even if you don't think that the opinion of the respective professional/experts should be boosted over the opinion of people who are primarily not relevant professionals/experts, surely prioritising the the view of the overwhelming majority would be a more reasonable natural stance.
Sure the person wants to kill himself but should he.