Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest ColDayMan

Abortion

Recommended Posts

Suppose a large group of Americans proposed a law to allow dueling to the death.  Would it really be a legitimate form of argument to say "if you don't want a duel to the death, don't accept one?"  "People should be able to decide for themselves?"  Is there really no basis on which one could argue "not only am I not going to be participating in any duels to the death, but I don't want to be part of any country in which they're accepted, either?"

 

so if I understand your point, a fetus doesn’t become a human being until the moment it is born then?

 

More like I don’t think an unborn fetus has any expectation of rights.  When a fetus becomes a person is, of course, highly debatable.  But again, I am not forcing anyone to conform to my view. You are.

 

This really isn't true, based on the principle above.  People have interests in more than just their own individual autonomy.  We are by nature all part of things greater than ourselves, to greater or lesser extents.  This is also why it is perfectly acceptable, for example, for a man to have views on the legality of abortion even though women are the only ones who can get the procedure, or for people who aren't in the military to have opinions on the appropriate use of the military, or for people who don't drive to have opinions on traffic laws.

 

Your statement inherently acknowledges that once an entity becomes a "person," it has rights.  But you are then categorically ruling out the possibility that personhood begins at conception.  That is assuming the conclusion.  What you're basically saying, like jam40jeff said and like I said above, is "we can't be sure, so I win by default."  That's not how it works.  That's not how either philosophical or scientific arguments work.

 

Just to step aside from the issue of abortion for a second, I think we're very likely within the lifetimes of at least some of the younger members of this boards to have a similar debate over the personhood of AI.  The same concepts will apply.  And there will probably also be people then trying to say that "when in doubt, treat it as just a thing, not a person."  That argument will be equally unsatisfying in that arena (as will the converse argument of "when in doubt, treat it as a full person"), because doubt is not the end of any inquiry, it is the identification of an inquiry that needs to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So again, if everyone disagrees, why shouldn’t the default legal position be that people can make their own decisions as to whether they have one?

 

There’s also much historical disagreement over age of consent, or the age required for buying alcohol. Should there not be laws addressing controversial subjects?

 

What's with all the unrelated tangents?  These other issues all have their own circumstances that must be considered.  If you want to argue that 8-year-olds can rationally consent to sex, be my guest.  An abortion is done by someone who has the unquestionable ability to make that choice for themselves, and about their own bodies, which is altogether different the question of age of consent.  The age for alcohol is pretty simple- if you're an adult, you should be able to drink.  In the US, that's 18.  If you can go to war and vote, you should be able to have a beer.  That one's not even complicated, and again, if someone doesn't want to drink at 18, they still get to make that choice for themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So again, if everyone disagrees, why shouldn’t the default legal position be that people can make their own decisions as to whether they have one?

 

Well, I think the point of these debates is for each side to try to make the other agree with them.  I don't know if either side is effective in that.  I don't really know if people can effectively debate anything anymore, based on what I see in politics, but that's a whole different issue.

 

But what you're saying is effectively, "if people disagree, why not make the default my point of view?"  But that's exactly what the other side thinks, too.  And thus, we're back at square one.

 

To people who believe abortion is murder, your argument seems to them like "if some people decide that murdering handicapped people was OK for some strange reason, just let them decide if it's OK, nobody's forcing you to murder handicapped people, but there's no reason to ban it and not let people choose for themselves."  Just because you don't view them as similar arguments doesn't mean that a valid argument couldn't be made to the contrary.

 

I also just think people should admit that they don’t care what someone else thinks when their goal is to circumvent their personal views altogether by law.  Why even debate?

 

I'm sure there are people that think that.  I'm sure there are people on both sides that have no basis for their opinion or specious reasoning.  That doesn't mean there aren't valid points to consider, though.

 

Actually, I don't really expect to change any minds on this.  It's just a discussion.  And no, the default is not my point of view.  The default is that adults should be able to determine their own actions on moral choices, especially about their own bodies and when there is no definitive demonstrable harm by making them.  Since no one can prove when life begins or what makes a human and when, that doesn't apply here. 

 

They may have valid reasons for not getting an abortion themselves.  Still not sure why those reasons should be applied to anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unrelated tangent? Reasonable people can disagree whether the drinking age is 18 or 21. Then there’s outliers among us, ie there should be no drinking age regs (Germany) or outright ban (prohibition). This abortion issue to me is very much the same, as cbussoccer, jam40jeff and others illustrated more eloquently than I can. Most of us are somewhere in the middle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reasonable people can disagree on drinking age but I don;t not get to decide if you drink or not.  It's your choice because you control your body.  Reasonable people can disagree about what a person is, therfore the pro-choice argument is the only pro-freedom argument.  If you think a person is created at the exact moment of conception.  Great, don't have an abortion after conception.  If I think a person is created when they are born.  Fine.  The latter position puts no burdens on your life or choices whatsoever.  The same is not true for the person is created at conception crowd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose a large group of Americans proposed a law to allow dueling to the death.  Would it really be a legitimate form of argument to say "if you don't want a duel to the death, don't accept one?"  "People should be able to decide for themselves?"  Is there really no basis on which one could argue "not only am I not going to be participating in any duels to the death, but I don't want to be part of any country in which they're accepted, either?"

 

so if I understand your point, a fetus doesn’t become a human being until the moment it is born then?

 

More like I don’t think an unborn fetus has any expectation of rights.  When a fetus becomes a person is, of course, highly debatable.  But again, I am not forcing anyone to conform to my view. You are.

 

This really isn't true, based on the principle above.  People have interests in more than just their own individual autonomy.  We are by nature all part of things greater than ourselves, to greater or lesser extents.  This is also why it is perfectly acceptable, for example, for a man to have views on the legality of abortion even though women are the only ones who can get the procedure, or for people who aren't in the military to have opinions on the appropriate use of the military, or for people who don't drive to have opinions on traffic laws.

 

Your statement inherently acknowledges that once an entity becomes a "person," it has rights.  But you are then categorically ruling out the possibility that personhood begins at conception.  That is assuming the conclusion.  What you're basically saying, like jam40jeff said and like I said above, is "we can't be sure, so I win by default."  That's not how it works.  That's not how either philosophical or scientific arguments work.

 

Just to step aside from the issue of abortion for a second, I think we're very likely within the lifetimes of at least some of the younger members of this boards to have a similar debate over the personhood of AI.  The same concepts will apply.  And there will probably also be people then trying to say that "when in doubt, treat it as just a thing, not a person."  That argument will be equally unsatisfying in that arena (as will the converse argument of "when in doubt, treat it as a full person"), because doubt is not the end of any inquiry, it is the identification of an inquiry that needs to happen.

 

More unrelated tangents and hypotheticals.  Next you're going to bring up a Purge scenario?  Come on.  I'm pretty sure it'd be easy to demonstrate that people randomly murdering each other in duels would be a net negative on society.  What I'm getting from all these other examples being brought up is that you guys believe:

1. The ability to consent is irrelevant.

2. An adult and fetus are the exact same thing.

3. Having an opinion about something is all the justification one needs to legislate someone's choices, with no other considerations given to evidence, societal impacts, personal responsibility or self-determination. 

 

I'm just not going to ever agree with any of those things.

 

At conception, there is just a miniscule clump of cells.  No, I absolutely do not consider that to be a human being.  If you do, fine.  How is that my issue?  And how does that mean you get to decide what I do?  Since you're so fond of hypotheticals, how about I support a ban on you owning guns.  Not only that, but what if I supported a ban on you ever owning anything more dangerous than a paperclip?  If it's my honestly-held belief and that I believe protecting real life, rather than theoretical, is more important, should I get to decide that for you?  Is that any different than what you're arguing here- that the protection of what you believe to be life and the undeniable right to life deserves protection even over all the objections of those who disagree?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reasonable people can disagree on drinking age but I don;t not get to decide if you drink or not.  It's your choice because you control your body.  Reasonable people can disagree about what a person is, therfore the pro-choice argument is the only pro-freedom argument.  If you think a person is created at the exact moment of conception.  Great, don't have an abortion after conception.  If I think a person is created when they are born.  Fine.  The latter position puts no burdens on your life or choices whatsoever.  The same is not true for the person is created at conception crowd.

 

A fetus feels pain in the third trimester. Just consider that for a moment. If that doesn’t at least give you pause for a moment then I can’t believe you have ever seriously considered this issue.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^so you don't think that's okay to do? But if that's not a person until it's born (as you seem to believe), and you believe in "choice," why wouldn't you be okay with someone choosing to abort it up until the moment of birth?

Let me ask you the reverse question.  At what point is it a human?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was an answer to the previous person.  Again I was speaking in hypotheticals of two extremes.  Surely, a person doesn't  exist at conception and surely it isn't exactly the day you are born.  If we  go by ability to feel pain, then it is somewhere around 30 weeks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unrelated tangent? Reasonable people can disagree whether the drinking age is 18 or 21. Then there’s outliers among us, ie there should be no drinking age regs (Germany) or outright ban (prohibition). This abortion issue to me is very much the same, as cbussoccer, jam40jeff and others illustrated more eloquently than I can. Most of us are somewhere in the middle.

 

I just think the abortion issue is already difficult without muddying the waters on other issues that have different considerations. 

 

I'm also generally take a compromised position.  18 is a compromise from no age, but not as late as 21 and more in line with the conventional standard of adulthood.  And a ban is way too far in the other direction, when I err more towards the freedom side than not.

 

I am also not for 100% unlimited, unrestricted abortion.  I think that's just about the only thing almost everyone can agree on.  For example, I draw a line at partial-birth when the mother isn't in danger. I still am pro-choice. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reasonable people can disagree on drinking age but I don;t not get to decide if you drink or not.  It's your choice because you control your body.

 

Huh?  If you are a person between 18 and 21, yes, the votes of people other than yourself can determine whether you can drink or not (or, perhaps even more appropriately as an analogy here, whether a business can sell drinks to you).  If you are a person under 18, you don't get a vote and you don't get to drink.  You didn't get to vote on whether you would get to vote and you don't get a vote on whether you would get to drink, either.

 

Reasonable people can disagree about what a person is, therfore the pro-choice argument is the only pro-freedom argument.  If you think a person is created at the exact moment of conception.  Great, don't have an abortion after conception.  If I think a person is created when they are born.  Fine.  The latter position puts no burdens on your life or choices whatsoever.  The same is not true for the person is created at conception crowd.

 

I think we're going in circles here.  If the fetus is a person, then the state is fully within its rights to protect it just as it would any other innocent person.  As the cliche goes, it's not a choice, it's a child.  It's not an issue on which you can argue from ignorance.  You have to make the affirmative case that that genetically unique entity, with its own metabolism, etc. is not a separate and distinct human being from its mother despite being a union of mother and father.  You can't hide behind unknowns on this.

 

What I'm getting from all these other examples being brought up is that you guys believe:

1. The ability to consent is irrelevant.

2. An adult and fetus are the exact same thing.

3. Having an opinion about something is all the justification one needs to legislate someone's choices, with no other considerations given to evidence, societal impacts, personal responsibility or self-determination. 

 

I'm just not going to ever agree with any of those things.

 

At conception, there is just a miniscule clump of cells.  No, I absolutely do not consider that to be a human being.

 

Finally!  An actual assertion of fact rather than obscurantism! Well, OK, maybe not an actual assertion of fact, but at least a statement of belief more than unknowability.

 

As to your substantive points, the fetus cannot consent to the abortion, so the consent issue favors the right to life.  Lacking an ability to communicate directly with the child, the child's lack of consent to its medical execution can be safely presumed.

 

As for the notion that a fetus and adult are the same thing, I need not prove that.  A one-day-old baby and an adult are also not the same thing.  Yet I would at least hope that you would agree that that child is now beyond the reach of medical execution?  Or, pardon me, reproductive choice health care?  So in that case, what matters is not whether an unborn child has the full suite of adult rights.  It certainly does not.  It does not even have the full suite of rights enjoyed by minors (certain other rights and privileges legally vest at age 7 and 13, for example).  But it does, or at least should, have the right not to be deliberately killed with the consent of the state.

 

As for the notion that having an opinion on something is all the justification one needs to legislate someone's choices, what do you think most laws are?

 

If you do, fine.  How is that my issue?

 

Because if I'm right, the law is fully justified in stopping you from harming children.  You've backtracked in a single sentence to making this an issue of perspective.

 

And how does that mean you get to decide what I do?  Since you're so fond of hypotheticals, how about I support a ban on you owning guns.  Not only that, but what if I supported a ban on you ever owning anything more dangerous than a paperclip?  If it's my honestly-held belief and that I believe protecting real life, rather than theoretical, is more important, should I get to decide that for you?

 

No.  But I will never argue from ignorance in the defense of the right to keep and bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reasonable people can disagree on drinking age but I don;t not get to decide if you drink or not.  It's your choice because you control your body.  Reasonable people can disagree about what a person is, therfore the pro-choice argument is the only pro-freedom argument.  If you think a person is created at the exact moment of conception.  Great, don't have an abortion after conception.  If I think a person is created when they are born.  Fine.  The latter position puts no burdens on your life or choices whatsoever.  The same is not true for the person is created at conception crowd.

 

A fetus feels pain in the third trimester. Just consider that for a moment. If that doesn’t at least give you pause for a moment then I can’t believe you have ever seriously considered this issue.

 

Most abortions don't occur at that time, and largely only in special circumstances.  I don't think anyone is in love with late-term abortions, and that's why most of the restrictions regarding abortion revolve around them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unrelated tangent? Reasonable people can disagree whether the drinking age is 18 or 21. Then there’s outliers among us, ie there should be no drinking age regs (Germany) or outright ban (prohibition). This abortion issue to me is very much the same, as cbussoccer, jam40jeff and others illustrated more eloquently than I can. Most of us are somewhere in the middle.

 

I just think the abortion issue is already difficult without muddying the waters on other issues that have different considerations. 

 

I'm also generally take a compromised position.  18 is a compromise from no age, but not as late as 21 and more in line with the conventional standard of adulthood.  And a ban is way too far in the other direction, when I err more towards the freedom side than not.

 

I am also not for 100% unlimited, unrestricted abortion.  I think that's just about the only thing almost everyone can agree on.  For example, I draw a line at partial-birth when the mother isn't in danger. I still am pro-choice.

 

Insightful. Thank you for your response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reasonable people can disagree on drinking age but I don;t not get to decide if you drink or not.  It's your choice because you control your body.  Reasonable people can disagree about what a person is, therfore the pro-choice argument is the only pro-freedom argument.  If you think a person is created at the exact moment of conception.  Great, don't have an abortion after conception.  If I think a person is created when they are born.  Fine.  The latter position puts no burdens on your life or choices whatsoever.  The same is not true for the person is created at conception crowd.

 

A fetus feels pain in the third trimester. Just consider that for a moment. If that doesn’t at least give you pause for a moment then I can’t believe you have ever seriously considered this issue.

 

So now let's us create an ethical dilemma.  Your fetus is diagnosed with a serous defect at week 27, the beginning of the third trimester.  You have received many opinions from doctors who tell you that your baby will suffer greatly when it is born and is currently suffering from pain.  It will live an existence of extreme pain for about 6 months after birth and then die.  Who should decide what course of action to take?  The government, random people who dislike abortion, mother, or doctor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What I'm getting from all these other examples being brought up is that you guys believe:

1. The ability to consent is irrelevant.

2. An adult and fetus are the exact same thing.

3. Having an opinion about something is all the justification one needs to legislate someone's choices, with no other considerations given to evidence, societal impacts, personal responsibility or self-determination. 

 

I'm just not going to ever agree with any of those things.

 

At conception, there is just a miniscule clump of cells.  No, I absolutely do not consider that to be a human being.

 

Finally!  An actual assertion of fact rather than obscurantism! Well, OK, maybe not an actual assertion of fact, but at least a statement of belief more than unknowability.

 

As to your substantive points, the fetus cannot consent to the abortion, so the consent issue favors the right to life.  Lacking an ability to communicate directly with the child, the child's lack of consent to its medical execution can be safely presumed.

 

As for the notion that a fetus and adult are the same thing, I need not prove that.  A one-day-old baby and an adult are also not the same thing.  Yet I would at least hope that you would agree that that child is now beyond the reach of medical execution?  Or, pardon me, reproductive choice health care?  So in that case, what matters is not whether an unborn child has the full suite of adult rights.  It certainly does not.  It does not even have the full suite of rights enjoyed by minors (certain other rights and privileges legally vest at age 7 and 13, for example).  But it does, or at least should, have the right not to be deliberately killed with the consent of the state.

 

As for the notion that having an opinion on something is all the justification one needs to legislate someone's choices, what do you think most laws are?

 

If you do, fine.  How is that my issue?

 

Because if I'm right, the law is fully justified in stopping you from harming children.  You've backtracked in a single sentence to making this an issue of perspective.

 

And how does that mean you get to decide what I do?  Since you're so fond of hypotheticals, how about I support a ban on you owning guns.  Not only that, but what if I supported a ban on you ever owning anything more dangerous than a paperclip?  If it's my honestly-held belief and that I believe protecting real life, rather than theoretical, is more important, should I get to decide that for you?

 

No.  But I will never argue from ignorance in the defense of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

You still haven't determined that a fetus is a person, and if/when you do, we can talk about consent and what the fetus may or may not communicate.

 

A child is an indisputable human being and subject to murder laws.  A fetus is not.  Your conclusion that it has the right to not be aborted is yours alone.

 

Most laws are based on the concept of demonstrable harm.  You can't take someone's life.  You can't steal their money.  You can't drive drunk and put others in danger.  Companies can't create unsafe working conditions with impunity, etc.  Your position fails to meet that criteria.  The fact is that you cannot prove you're right or give a definitive, tangible reason that allowing abortion is demonstrably harmful outside of hurting your subjective sense of morality.  I didn't backtrack whatsoever. 

 

I'm arguing from a position of ignorance on this matter? How so?  And why shouldn't I get to determine if you own guns if I use the exact same reason you use to defend banning others from having an abortion- the protection and safety of life?  Tell me specifically how your need to protect life is greater than my own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most laws are based on the concept of demonstrable harm.  You can't take someone's life.  You can't steal their money.  You can't drive drunk and put others in danger.  Companies can't create unsafe working conditions with impunity, etc.  Your position fails to meet that criteria.  The fact is that you cannot prove you're right or give a definitive, tangible reason that allowing abortion is demonstrably harmful outside of hurting your subjective sense of morality.

 

What?  Isn't "demonstrably harmful" subjective?  So if a fetus is aborted 5 minutes before birth, no harm no foul?  But 10 minutes later it's murder?  I'm not sure you can say one is "demonstrably harmful" and the other is not.

 

This debate revolves around many difficult to answer questions, and neither side should act like they have all the answers.  Your argument is pretty much "since I don't consider a fetus at any age to be a human, it has no rights".  But you're working from your own assumption.  Others may feel just as strongly as you do that a 39 week old fetus IS a human, others feel the same way about 20 week old fetus, others about a 9 week old fetus.  What is someone argued that a 6 month old baby doesn't yet know it has rights and therefore it should be OK to murder young babies?  Would you be OK with that?

 

There's no clear agreement, but the solution isn't to throw our hands up and say "anything goes!"  And as far as not be open to argument, I haven't once stated my position on the matter, but rather am trying to get you to understand that you are being as blind to others' reasoning as you blame pro-life people for being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reasonable people can disagree on drinking age but I don;t not get to decide if you drink or not.  It's your choice because you control your body.  Reasonable people can disagree about what a person is, therfore the pro-choice argument is the only pro-freedom argument.  If you think a person is created at the exact moment of conception.  Great, don't have an abortion after conception.  If I think a person is created when they are born.  Fine.  The latter position puts no burdens on your life or choices whatsoever.  The same is not true for the person is created at conception crowd.

 

A fetus feels pain in the third trimester. Just consider that for a moment. If that doesn’t at least give you pause for a moment then I can’t believe you have ever seriously considered this issue.

 

So now let's us create an ethical dilemma.  Your fetus is diagnosed with a serous defect at week 27, the beginning of the third trimester.  You have received many opinions from doctors who tell you that your baby will suffer greatly when it is born and is currently suffering from pain.  It will live an existence of extreme pain for about 6 months after birth and then die.  Who should decide what course of action to take?  The government, random people who dislike abortion, mother, or doctor?

 

Now that’s a first class ethical dilemma. I will say that nobody should be in pain, as we have the ability, though often fail, to medicate terminal patients from that kind of tortured existence. Also doctors are wrong all the time. So with an inch of elbow room I’d personally let the child be born with the solemn hope that the doctors are wrong. Now what legal basis should apply? Tough to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the laws were "anything goes" like they are in Canada, you won't find doctors that will perform abortions that late in the pregnancy.  It doesn't happen in Canada where it is permitted.  If there is a serious abnormality found after around 32 weeks a doctor will induce labor.  Should there be a late limit - Sure?  but doctors should make that determination since some decisions are life or death (for the mother) and need to be made immediately.  Otherwise women could die due to some arbitrary limit on when an abortion can be performed.  However, if a limit must be put in place I'd suggest 3rd trimester with exceptions for life and safety of mother and suffering of fetus/baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You still haven't determined that a fetus is a person, and if/when you do, we can talk about consent and what the fetus may or may not communicate.

 

It is genetically unique from its mother, a unique and new member of the species Homo sapiens.  One-half its chromosomes are from its father.  No other cells in the mother's body can say that.  In the normal course of events, without further extraordinary human intervention (the very kind that is the subject of this debate), that child's journey to adulthood has biologically already begun.  There is no comparable threshold to conception where a new member of our species--a person--comes into existence.

 

The fact that it is still inside the mother is irrelevant to its status as a member of our species; the same could be said of a 39-week old fetus, or even a 41-week-old fetus that's a little late emerging into the world.  It is illogical to suggest that a 39-week old baby born prematurely, say at 38 weeks, is a person but the exact same organism is not a person if born on its regular 40-week due date.

 

The fact that it cannot survive on its own outside the womb is irrelevant to its status as a member of our species.  The same could be said for a child born yesterday.  Without care and assistance from adult members of the species, it will die.

 

On what basis do you argue that it is not a person?  You keep insisting that you believe that it is not a person and your mind is not open to being changed on this.  Why?  What makes you so certain?

 

A child is an indisputable human being and subject to murder laws.  A fetus is not.  Your conclusion that it has the right to not be aborted is yours alone.

 

No.  It is not my conclusion alone.  It was the conclusion of the democratically elected legislatures of many states prior to that decision being nationalized and constitutionalized by an activist Supreme Court.  You cannot use the current state of the law as an argument in favor the current state of the law--a child is protected by murder laws and a fetus is not because the Supreme Court has forbidden those laws from protecting the unborn child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the laws were "anything goes" like they are in Canada, you won't find doctors that will perform abortions that late in the pregnancy.  It doesn't happen in Canada where it is permitted.  If there is a serious abnormality found after around 32 weeks a doctor will induce labor.  Should there be a late limit - Sure?  but doctors should make that determination since some decisions are life or death (for the mother) and need to be made immediately.  Otherwise women could die due to some arbitrary limit on when an abortion can be performed.  However, if a limit must be put in place I'd suggest 3rd trimester with exceptions for life and safety of mother and suffering of fetus/baby.

 

bbbbbbut doesn't a Death Panel decide if the baby dies?

 

that's how Communist nationalized health care works

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I think a person is created when they are born. 

 

so it's okay to have an abortion the day before one gives birth? If not, why?

 

If my partner and I had an unplanned pregnancy, and she wanted to abort the fetus the day before it was due, I would do everything in my power to talk her out of it.

 

Now let's say that the doctor told us there was a 99% chance there would be extreme complications during the pregnancy and my partner would die during childbirth unless she had an abortion. I can't tell you what choice I would make in that situation.

 

And that's the beauty of being pro-choice. You don't know other peoples' reasons for making their decisions. I can simultaneously say "I don't want my partner or my sister to have an abortion" but also believe that we shouldn't ban abortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's the beauty of being pro-choice. You don't know other peoples' reasons for making their decisions. I can simultaneously say "I don't want my partner or my sister to have an abortion" but also believe that we shouldn't ban abortions.

 

You can just as easily say you’re pro-life. Being so is defined as opposing abortion as morally wrong. Lots of pro life libertarians are.....pro choice.

 

This isn’t as obvious as it should be, but most people don’t fall into the polarized political definitions that pro life and pro choice have become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's the beauty of being pro-choice. You don't know other peoples' reasons for making their decisions. I can simultaneously say "I don't want my partner or my sister to have an abortion" but also believe that we shouldn't ban abortions.

 

You can just as easily say you’re pro-life. Being so is defined as opposing abortion as morally wrong. Lots of pro life libertarians are.....pro choice.

 

This isn’t as obvious as it should be, but most people don’t fall into the polarized political definitions that pro life and pro choice have become.

 

I would argue that everyone is pro life.  We just disagree on the best strategy to reduce abortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's the beauty of being pro-choice. You don't know other peoples' reasons for making their decisions. I can simultaneously say "I don't want my partner or my sister to have an abortion" but also believe that we shouldn't ban abortions.

 

You can just as easily say you’re pro-life. Being so is defined as opposing abortion as morally wrong. Lots of pro life libertarians are.....pro choice.

 

This isn’t as obvious as it should be, but most people don’t fall into the polarized political definitions that pro life and pro choice have become.

 

I would argue that everyone is pro life.  We just disagree on the best strategy to reduce abortions.

 

Well there you go....with that you would just be confusing people who just want to fight with the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most laws are based on the concept of demonstrable harm.  You can't take someone's life.  You can't steal their money.  You can't drive drunk and put others in danger.  Companies can't create unsafe working conditions with impunity, etc.  Your position fails to meet that criteria.  The fact is that you cannot prove you're right or give a definitive, tangible reason that allowing abortion is demonstrably harmful outside of hurting your subjective sense of morality.

 

What?  Isn't "demonstrably harmful" subjective?  So if a fetus is aborted 5 minutes before birth, no harm no foul?  But 10 minutes later it's murder?  I'm not sure you can say one is "demonstrably harmful" and the other is not.

 

This debate revolves around many difficult to answer questions, and neither side should act like they have all the answers.  Your argument is pretty much "since I don't consider a fetus at any age to be a human, it has no rights".  But you're working from your own assumption.  Others may feel just as strongly as you do that a 39 week old fetus IS a human, others feel the same way about 20 week old fetus, others about a 9 week old fetus.  What is someone argued that a 6 month old baby doesn't yet know it has rights and therefore it should be OK to murder young babies?  Would you be OK with that?

 

There's no clear agreement, but the solution isn't to throw our hands up and say "anything goes!"  And as far as not be open to argument, I haven't once stated my position on the matter, but rather am trying to get you to understand that you are being as blind to others' reasoning as you blame pro-life people for being.

 

You're all going around in circles, as is typical in this debate.  The hypotheticals are flying because no one can actually discuss the bottom line issue- that some people just want to have control over other people's lives.  I do not, at least not without an undeniably factual reason, and those don't exist in this debate. No matter what views on abortion I have given, I have not once said that they should be enshrined under the law.  I can't say the same for the "pro-life" folks.  You all could at least just tell me that you're not interested in hearing what I have to say because you're still going to push for laws that limit choices regardless.  Right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still haven't determined that a fetus is a person, and if/when you do, we can talk about consent and what the fetus may or may not communicate.

 

It is genetically unique from its mother, a unique and new member of the species Homo sapiens.  One-half its chromosomes are from its father.  No other cells in the mother's body can say that.  In the normal course of events, without further extraordinary human intervention (the very kind that is the subject of this debate), that child's journey to adulthood has biologically already begun.  There is no comparable threshold to conception where a new member of our species--a person--comes into existence.

 

The fact that it is still inside the mother is irrelevant to its status as a member of our species; the same could be said of a 39-week old fetus, or even a 41-week-old fetus that's a little late emerging into the world.  It is illogical to suggest that a 39-week old baby born prematurely, say at 38 weeks, is a person but the exact same organism is not a person if born on its regular 40-week due date.

 

The fact that it cannot survive on its own outside the womb is irrelevant to its status as a member of our species.  The same could be said for a child born yesterday.  Without care and assistance from adult members of the species, it will die.

 

On what basis do you argue that it is not a person?  You keep insisting that you believe that it is not a person and your mind is not open to being changed on this.  Why?  What makes you so certain?

 

A child is an indisputable human being and subject to murder laws.  A fetus is not.  Your conclusion that it has the right to not be aborted is yours alone.

 

No.  It is not my conclusion alone.  It was the conclusion of the democratically elected legislatures of many states prior to that decision being nationalized and constitutionalized by an activist Supreme Court.  You cannot use the current state of the law as an argument in favor the current state of the law--a child is protected by murder laws and a fetus is not because the Supreme Court has forbidden those laws from protecting the unborn child.

 

You're just repeating what you personally believe and are arrogant enough think that should be enough for me and everyone else.  Sorry, it isn't.  I noticed you really avoided the gun question, though, didn't you.  No chance at being consistent, I guess.  You see the fetus as life, and seem willing to do just about anything to protect it.  Yet you're not willing to do the same with actual people.  Proponent of the death penalty too, maybe?  I know that's still big with conservatives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the fetus qualifies as a human life, it has stay silent on that issue, or has never been asked to address that issue directly. This is the only way that abortion would become illegal is if the Supreme Court ever establishes the personhood of a fetus. It is trending that direction though since courts are recognizing the personhood of the unborn fetus when they are involved in homicide and car accidents and such (i.e. a drunk driver who kills a pregnant woman is charged with 2 deaths).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Right, but local courts recognize those ordinances. Words do mean something and it is also a matter more than semantics. If the question is ever presented before the court, these laws can act as persuasive material for the court. It is a much more subtle move than some of the crazy bills like the heartbeat bill or 72 hour notice periods that courts have ruled unconstitutional already.

 

At the end of the day, Roe V Wade is not overturned but rendered moot if the question ever comes up on the "personhood of the fetus"

If the answer is yes, then the woman loses control over that portion of her body because she would essentially be trampling on the rights of another person. If the answer is no, then it is hard to force many of the restrictions there is today and there will be more access.

 

Either way, there will be a lot more people unhappy with whatever the decision would be to that question then there is under the current situation now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court will never recognize a fetus as a person.  Never.  It will open up a can of worms. 

 

That question has never come before it so we don't know.

 

In the current make up, they very well could and it is not too much of a stretch.

 

Well it would be hard to see them saying yes to this question, it is also difficult to see them say an emphatic no either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they will go there.  Hypothetical, if a fetus is a person, how do you classify a miscarriage? 

 

Will IVF become defacto illegal?

 

There's a whole a can of worms the court shouldn't even want to ever touch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the Supreme Court will officially recognize a fetus as a person, essentially passing their own "personhood amendment" to the Constitution.  Overruling Roe v. Wade would be well short of that, though.  It would simply return that question to state legislatures, where it existed for most of U.S. history (including periods when abortion was largely legal and other periods when it was largely illegal).  It would then be incumbent on me to make the substantive case, which would largely follow the lines I laid out for jonoh even if it will never be enough for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're all going around in circles, as is typical in this debate.

 

I'll try to lay out my point for you one more time:

 

Each side has irrational people and lunatics who will make stupid arguments.

 

On the pro-life side, you hear people calling pro-choice people "baby killers."  Of course pro-choice people do not want to kill babies.  They just don't view a fetus as a human life with rights.

 

On the pro-choice people to call opponents of abortion "anti-choice."  Most pro-life people (at least the rational ones) I would think don't view it as a choice that is valid, just as they don't view a murder of someone after they are born as a choice people should be allowed to make.  They view a fetus as a human life with rights.

 

There's also a continuum of beliefs in the middle as well, but somehow people get pigeonholed as being one extreme or the other.

 

All of these statements just polarize people and distract from the heart of the matter, which is at what point do we consider human life (with all of its accompanying rights) to begin?  This is a difficult question for people to agree on.  If it wasn't, it probably wouldn't be an age-old argument.  But it doesn't mean that both sides shouldn't present their case.

 

I am not posting to tell you that your position is necessarily wrong.  I am telling you that your arguments are wrong and ineffective.  This isn't about a desire to kill babies nor a desire to limit choice.  It is about a disagreement on when a human life has started, plain and simple.  Once you extend the argument past that, you've lost, and you're just as bad as the people on the polar opposite side who make inflammatory statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you could get everyone to agree on when human life begins, that's not the end of the debate. Because there are instances where we allow people to kill other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you could get everyone to agree on when human life begins, that's not the end of the debate. Because there are instances where we allow people to kill other people.

 

I agree that it wouldn't be the end of the debate, but those are small details compared to the main issue.  I think it'd be easier to get people to come to an agreement on those issues separately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you could get everyone to agree on when human life begins, that's not the end of the debate. Because there are instances where we allow people to kill other people.

 

I agree that it wouldn't be the end of the debate, but those are small details compared to the main issue.  I think it'd be easier to get people to come to an agreement on those issues separately.

 

Oh, I doubt it would be so easy!  Even if a fetus is a human life, we would argue over whether the life of a woman whose life is endangered by the fetus would be more important than the life of the fetus, and whether it's the woman's decision, a doctor's decision, or the government's decision -- plenty of room for strong disagreements! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sexposparenting

I’ll never forget “good” Christians shouting, “You’re a WHORE,” in my face while I walked into Planned Parenthood in 2000, needing emergency contraception and STI testing after I was raped at a fraternity party.

 

@Rewire_News

They march into abortion clinics and try to hand roses to patients in the waiting room. They pray out loud, begging women to cancel their appointments, and refuse to leave. How long will they get away with this?

https://rewire.news/article/2018/03/01/trespassing-trial-march-caught-attention-activists-sides-abortion-movement/


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this thread is primarily for news in the U.S. - but this seemed like some important news from overseas:

 


Irish abortion referendum: Ireland overturns abortion ban

 

The Republic of Ireland has voted overwhelmingly to overturn the abortion ban by 66.4% to 33.6%.  A referendum held on Friday resulted in a landslide win for the repeal side.

 

Currently, abortion is only allowed when a woman's life is at risk, but not in cases of rape, incest or fatal fetal abnormality.  The Eighth Amendment, which grants an equal right to life to the mother and unborn, will be replaced.

 

MORE:  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44256152

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ShaneClaiborne

It is a strange thing that you can be pro-guns, pro-death penalty, pro-military...

and still say you are pro-life.  For me, pro-life is bigger than just being anti-abortion.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...