Straight Dope Message Board

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Imagine that you're a women then? Jesus, is imagination so hard for some people? Try to imagine how it would feel if there were a large movement pushing to make the government able to tell you what to do with your own body. If it's the abortion part that you're getting stuck on, then take that out. Imagine there was a group trying to claim that outdoor urination was bad for the environment and therefore men should be forbidden from taking a piss outside and instead must only use government approved receptacles. That wouldn't bother you? Seriously just take a few minutes and try to imagine any scenario that you would be ok with the government mandating what you, personally, can and cannot do with your body. Then ask yourself why you are ok forcing that onto others.

If urinating outside killed babies, I think I'd be OK with it.

Or if the government needed to collect my urine because it would save babies lives, once again, I would be OK with it.

The question is whether or not these things are the moral equivalent of babies or something close to it. 101

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

A friend of mine found out her baby didn't have a brain in the second trimester. The doctor withheld this information for 30 days. By the time they realized they needed an abortion asap the religious hospitals would not perform it and she had to travel and there were complications that left her in the hospital for several days wondering if she would make it.

These are not our decisions to make. These decisions are for the families to make. She might have died because her doctor waited 30 days to tell her this awful news. The only reason I can think for this delay was to get her past the point that abortion becomes difficult to get performed. This is reprehensible and we should stop treating women like property of the state.

This is my opinion, for what its's worth.

That doctor should have his/her medical license suspended if not revoked. 102

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Imagine you are in a lifeboat and a baby flops into lifeboat. You didn't ask for it but there it is. The baby keeps you up at night; takes up a bunch of room on a small lifeboat; and you have to feed it. And while you have plenty of supplies, it will be 9 months before you get to a port.

Should it be illegal to just dump the baby in the water?

Yes, I think it should be illegal to "just dump the baby in the water". That's plain murder. Not sure how that would be enforced though.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

What if its a very sick baby that might not make it to port and might even get you sick?

It shouldn't be illegal if the sickness is deadly and contageous but I wouldn't do it. I have no idea how someone one a life raft would determine the severity of the sickness, unless I'm a doctor that is an expert in such matters. But in that case I definitely wouldn't throw the baby overboard. Can you imagine? Again, no idea how the law would be enforced.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

What if the baby is handicapped or has down's syndrome?

Doesn't matter at all.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

What if it's high tech incubator with a fertilized egg that will turn into a baby by the time you reach port?

In that case, I have absolutely no reason to kick the incubator off the boat because it doesn't pose any threat to me. And that's someone else's future kid. Kicking it off could easily cause great emotional distress to someone, regardless of whether I assign personhood to the egg or not. Am I misinterpreting you?

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Your answer might depend on what flopped into the lifeboat with you. Some people think its a baby, other's think its a fertilized egg that might become a baby in 9 months.

I think your hypothetical backfired. Under certain circumstances I might kick the baby off, but under no circumstances do I kick off the machine with the egg inside.

~Max 103

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Why is it so hard to understand that

You use this phrase a lot. It's not that they don't understand you, they don't agree with you.

They could just as easily ask why it is so hard for you to understand that abortions murder innocent babies.

What in the world makes you think that you are qualified to make these intimate choices for everyone?!

I'm pretty sure that we can decide that you generally cannot kill other people. 104

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

The number of babies I have personally adopted has no bearing on whether it is okay to kill them.

Originally Posted by Airbeck

It means you don't really give a shit about these babies that you keep virtue signaling about, to use a term that you on the right should understand.

No, I agree with puddleglum on this one.

To put it in another perspective, I think the government should provide a public health care system. Does somebody who opposes public health care have a valid point if they ask me if I'm paying for some uninsured person's medical expenses? That person could argue that I don't really care about uninsured people not having access to medical care if I'm not willing to personally step in. 105

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

It means you don't really give a shit about these babies that you keep virtue signaling about, to use a term that you on the right should understand.

I don't bring homeless people into my home but I want to get rid of homelessness even if it means more taxes for everyone.

I don't want to personally represent murderers and rapists but i want them to have advice of counsel.

Maybe that just makes me a hypocrite, but I'm a hypocrite with a vote and you have to persuade me to vote your way. You can't scold me into it. 106

[Velocity]

Sigh, it has turned into an abortion spinoff.


OK, what do people fear losing on.......homelessness laws? squatter laws? minimum wage? Medicare for All? higher or lower military spending? 107

[Chingon]

Oh man how did abortion even get involved in this thread? 108

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Velocity

Sigh, it has turned into an abortion spinoff.


OK, what do people fear losing on.......homelessness laws? squatter laws? minimum wage? Medicare for All? higher or lower military spending?

Taking them in order, and trying to phrase them in your requested fear-of-loss:

Homelessness laws - I fear losing the ability to walk the streets in open-toed shoes

Squatter laws - I fear losing my home, I suppose, although squatter laws aren't really a major source of political contention, and I'm not terribly worried about losing it.

Medicare for All - I fear losing my current health care coverage, which is pretty damn good.

Lower military spending - I fear losing a military capable of defending our nation from threats and defeating all our enemies. 109

[RioRico]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

The number of babies I have personally adopted has no bearing on whether it is okay to kill them.

Your lack of a stake here makes dismissing your arguments easy.

If you can't tell the difference between the unborn and the born, can you distinguish between the undead and the dead? If you think embryos are persons, shouldn't they face all other legal burdens persons face, like taxation, fares, elevator and room capacity limits, etc? Or is an embryo only a "person" so you can control a woman's body?

Back to the topic. The abortion issue grimly features choice vs slavery. What will be lost in the struggle? Freedom. 110

[Red Wiggler]

Originally Posted by Velocity

Sigh, it has turned into an abortion spinoff.


OK, what do people fear losing on.......homelessness laws? squatter laws? minimum wage? Medicare for All? higher or lower military spending?

1. I'd like to investigate if putting a roof over all their heads isn't the cheapest method. If it isn't, we'll try something else.

2. No opinion on squatter laws without specifics. I don't know much about the subject.

3. UHC is cheaper, smarter, better for the citizenry at large and better for the economy in the long run. A rare combination.

4. I want defense spending frozen and gradually decreased over time. We have surrendered the right to interfere around the globe because of our superior democracy.

Unasked: I'm worried about losing democracy here at home because of our unwillingness to reform our antiquated systems, our growing antipathy to universal suffrage and a large part of the electorate increasingly seeking power over the expansion of democracy.

Have at me. 111

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by RioRico

Your lack of a stake here makes dismissing your arguments easy.

If you can't tell the difference between the unborn and the born, can you distinguish between the undead and the dead? If you think embryos are persons, shouldn't they face all other legal burdens persons face, like taxation, fares, elevator and room capacity limits, etc? Or is an embryo only a "person" so you can control a woman's body?

Back to the topic. The abortion issue grimly features choice vs slavery. What will be lost in the struggle? Freedom.

Unwanted babies in the US are so rare that 25,000 couples had to go overseas to adopt. Many countries now have bans on international adoptions because so many american couples adopted babies from there. Yet, because I have not taken away a baby from a couple that unlike me has none of their own, my arguments are easy to dismiss? That makes no sense, I have no homeless people living with me at the moment, yet I don't think it should be legal to murder them, nor do I have any Canadians living with me, but I think open season on Canucks is a bad idea.

I can distinguish between the dead and the living, a fetus is moving, growing, has a beating heart, and a functioning brain. Those mean it is a living thing. When it is ripped from its mother's womb and is no longer moving, growing, its heart has stopped beating, and its brain has stopped working then it is dead.

I think the issue whether embryos should be taxed should be settled on a case by case basis depending on the job the embryo has and whether it is on salary or is working on an hourly basis. Fares is up to the bus or train company and elevator capacity is a difficult issue that I will need more time to think through all the implications.

Slavery is not involved in the abortion issue at all, the choice is between life and death. 112

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Max S.

Yes, I think it should be illegal to "just dump the baby in the water". That's plain murder. Not sure how that would be enforced though.

Like every other law. If we catch you, we send you to jail.

So if you thought a fetus = baby then you think it's murder? Even if it causes significant discomfort and inconvenience to you.

It shouldn't be illegal if the sickness is deadly and contageous but I wouldn't do it. I have no idea how someone one a life raft would determine the severity of the sickness, unless I'm a doctor that is an expert in such matters. But in that case I definitely wouldn't throw the baby overboard. Can you imagine? Again, no idea how the law would be enforced.

Lets say you're a doctor so you recognize the deadly but only slightly contagious disease.

So if you think fetus = baby but the fetus presents risk to the health/life of the mother then /= murder?

Doesn't matter at all.

Some people get abortions for these reasons but would keep a baby without downs or some handicap. Should they be permitted to do so?

So these are things that would not change your answer is you think fetus = baby

In that case, I have absolutely no reason to kick the incubator off the boat because it doesn't pose any threat to me. And that's someone else's future kid. Kicking it off could easily cause great emotional distress to someone, regardless of whether I assign personhood to the egg or not. Am I misinterpreting you?

Lets say its your kid in there. The incubator takes up space, requires you to take care that it doesn't tip overboard, you bang into it from time to time bruising yourself and makes a humming noise that keeps you awake and makes you a little seasick.

So you think a surrogate mother should not be able to get an abortion? Or you wouldn't do it if you were a surrogate mother. That's someone else's kid.

I think your hypothetical backfired. Under certain circumstances I might kick the baby off, but under no circumstances do I kick off the machine with the egg inside.

How did it backfire? 113

[RioRico]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

Slavery is not involved in the abortion issue at all, the choice is between life and death.

Forcing a woman into unwanted labor isn't slavery? You need a new dictionary. 114