Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:56 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I reject your entire belief system.

Why should I accept yours then? I'd say by rejecting mine you have discredited yours in the process. This is the stalemate solution.


Quote:
But if you say that you no longer judge and condemn women for the choices they make about their bodies, I consider that a positive evolution in your behavior/attitude towards women.
Amen and thank you. Perhaps it was not such a stalemate solution afterall.
  #102  
Old 01-31-2020, 12:47 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 306
It is murder, but its legal so its accepted. What we Need is better birth control or people willing to use birth control properly.
__________________
I want to know what happened pre malone
  #103  
Old 01-31-2020, 12:54 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post

I'd like to know what pro-choicers feel about the violent death of a wanted fetus. Say a pregnant woman is mugged, and being hit in the stomach resulted in the fetus dying. How should the mugger be charged? I'd personally like to see them charged with at least manslaughter. But since that fetus isn't legally deemed a person, how can they? What is the physical difference between a fetus that is wanted and a fetus that isn't?
Charged with assault and bodily harm. Manslaughter? If you go that way, would you charge a woman who fell down the stairs causing her fetus to die with involuntary manslaughter?
While anti-choicers call a fetus a person, miscarriages don't get treated the same as the death of someone after birth. Are pro-lifers donating money to stop the high death rates for these "people?" If not, perhaps they don't really think they are people after all, except when it is in the context of preventing women from having autonomy over their bodies.

Last edited by Voyager; 01-31-2020 at 12:54 PM.
  #104  
Old 01-31-2020, 01:04 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
It is murder, but its legal so its accepted. What we Need is better birth control or people willing to use birth control properly.
We have pretty good birth control, but I agree on your second point. However that involves making people more responsible when it comes to sex, and that ain't going to happen.
Oddly enough, many "pro-lifers" are also against birth control, calling it dangerous and calling for chastity, as if that's going to work. Really good birth control would eliminate most abortions, you think they'd be for it.
  #105  
Old 01-31-2020, 01:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
...Are pro-lifers donating money to stop the high death rates for these "people?" If not, perhaps they don't really think they are people after all, except when it is in the context of preventing women from having autonomy over their bodies.
In fact the anti-abortionists (They are not pro-life), do just the opposite. They fight hard against Prenatal care as it is often mixed in with birth control and even abortion advice. For example in the liberal Pro-choice state California, the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, reduced the rate of child or mother deaths due to childbirth by half:

https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2017/...nal-mortality/
In the last 10 years, U.S. mothers have been dying in childbirth at shocking rates: Compared to other developed countries, three times as many U.S. women die during or shortly after pregnancy. Nationally, maternal death rates are still rising.

But, as an excellent new story in Vox explains today, California has successfully fought the trend. As of 2013, California women died during or shortly after pregnancy at a rate of 7.3 deaths per 100,000 live births, which is half the state's 2006 rate and a third of the current national rate.

The difference is largely due to the work of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative,...Texas, which has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. There, 36 moms die per 100,000 births, or five times California’s maternal mortality rate. Texas has also closed down Planned Parenthood clinics and rejected Medicaid expansion — changes the GOP would like to see ripple across the US. The state boasts the largest uninsured population in America.


Now this article focuses on Maternal deaths due to childbirth, but a similar issue can be shown with miscarriages and babies who die right after birth.

So the "Pro-Life' movement is killing Moms and children. They are not "pro-life" at all- in order to fight the dreaded abortion, they are killing more than they save.

And, oddly- there is no clear Biblical order against abortion. Some verses in the OT can be even taken to be in favor of abortion.
https://rewire.news/article/2012/06/...stians-view-1/
  #106  
Old 01-31-2020, 01:13 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
We have pretty good birth control, but I agree on your second point. However that involves making people more responsible when it comes to sex, and that ain't going to happen.
Oddly enough, many "pro-lifers" are also against birth control, calling it dangerous and calling for chastity, as if that's going to work. Really good birth control would eliminate most abortions, you think they'd be for it.
I am pro-life, but I am not about to try and change the laws to make abortion illegal, as with drugs, its going to happen whether legal or not. If most abortions were unneeded because of nobody getting pregnant when they didn't want to be, Planned Parenthood would go out of business.
__________________
I want to know what happened pre malone
  #107  
Old 01-31-2020, 01:15 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 882
No they wouldn't.
  #108  
Old 01-31-2020, 02:03 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
... and the pro-choice side because it is - first of all, irrelevant to them, as you point out - and secondly, because the notion that a fetus is just a clump of tissue like an appendix has always been absurd.
There is a gaping valley full of possibilities between a person and an appendix. If you think that the consensus on the pro-choice side is that a 6 week old fetus is a person, you're crazily wrong. So why the hell would should we just admit to something which we don't actually believe?

Why don't pro-lifers just say "It's a person, but it's the mother's body, so their business."? We pro-choicers would then no longer be able to make the body autonomy argument. See, you'd take one of our arguments away. Go forth and make it so!
  #109  
Old 01-31-2020, 03:12 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But surprisingly rarely do you hear the pro-choice side ever just say, "Yes, abortion kills a person, but it's a unique circumstance not fully analogous to anything else."

Because if the pro-choice side ever did use such an argument, it would essentially shut up most pro-life arguments in one fell swoop. It would be acknowledging the pro-life argument (that a fetus is a person) while also brushing it aside at the same time. The pro-life side would then have a hard time making much.
I believe that is the true, reasonable, pro-choice position. There is a pregnant person and an unborn person she is carrying. Since that relationship is without any parallel among born people, in terms of the unborn's person dependence on the pregnant person, the pregnant person's rights should be pre-eminent, including her right to kill the unborn person to preserve her own well being (not just her own literal survival, which is usually not disputed).

Why isn't that the common argument? I think two reasons. First it's an age (I mean the last century plus not just the internet age but more so now) of popular democracy and thus appeal to the lowest common denominator. You'd lose most average people possibly amenable to pro-choice at 'OK abortion is killing a human, but...' It would also be at this point perceived as a huge concession to pro-life, though it's not really, but rather just what the pro-choice position really is, even if pro-choice people are understandably reluctant to say it.

Second reason is that 'unique relationship between mother and unborn child' gets progressively less unique closer to birth. If the argument is 'I don't have to explain to *you* why it's the mother's categorical right to terminate the pregnancy till birth, it just is, end of story', you don't have to deal with gradations of uniqueness of the unique relationship as the unborn develops from a few cells to moments before birth. It's just the mother's right to end the unborn person's life till birth, that's the rule, period. Which works if you have the votes to sustain it.

But because I think a lot of people subconsciously realize it is a matter of competing rights of mother and unborn person, that's why hardline pro-choice has trouble with public opinion on late term abortion. It's the same reason hardline pro-life has trouble with public opinion on 'rape and incest exception': at least subconscious realization of competing rights of two people, where rape as reason for conception (and accompanying greater emotional burden it generates for mother) could reasonably tilt the balance in favor of allowing the mother to kill the unborn child in that particular case even if it does not in other cases.

IOW admitting the situation is between a pregnant person and an unborn person, would at least in some cases force pro-choice *or* pro-life to give ground, and nowadays in polarized politics the rule is to never give any ground on anything.

Last edited by Corry El; 01-31-2020 at 03:13 PM.
  #110  
Old 01-31-2020, 03:25 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
I am pro-life, but I am not about to try and change the laws to make abortion illegal, as with drugs, its going to happen whether legal or not. If most abortions were unneeded because of nobody getting pregnant when they didn't want to be, Planned Parenthood would go out of business.
The first figure I could google said that Planned Parenthood spent 3% of their budget on abortions, I don't see why you would expect them to go 'out of business' from stopping about 3% of what they actually do. I would expect an actual pro-life person to cheer planned parenthood for doing things like treating diseases and screening for cancer, but I think most people here have figured out what pro-life means in practice.
  #111  
Old 01-31-2020, 03:26 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
...
Oddly enough, many "pro-lifers" are also against birth control, calling it dangerous and calling for chastity, as if that's going to work. Really good birth control would eliminate most abortions, you think they'd be for it.
There is a odd offshoot about this.

Many pro-lifers are republicans. End abortion, end birth control and we will have many home grown babies who will more tend to vote republican. So some of this may be about the long term health of the Republican party.

The opposite of this is that democrats more are for on lower domestic birth rates through legal abortion and available birth control. Thus for our replacements we need immigration, and some of those immigrants will achieve US citizenship and would be more likely to vote democratic, along with their children.

Currently we see Trump attack both abortion rights and legal immigration and path to citizenship, which would seem to favor votes long term for the republican party.

How much of the abortion debate is about votes? Well close to zero, how much do votes influence abortion rights, that I'm not so sure of.
  #112  
Old 01-31-2020, 03:32 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Many pro-lifers are republicans. End abortion, end birth control and we will have many home grown babies who will more tend to vote republican. So some of this may be about the long term health of the Republican party.
The Roe Effect - which addresses this - takes largely the opposite conclusion. Children tend to follow in the political footsteps of their parents - but pro-choice people are likelier to have an abortion (although yes, some pro-life people hypocritically abort anyway) - hence abortion reduces the number of future pro-choice voters.
  #113  
Old 01-31-2020, 03:34 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Why should I accept yours then?
Because mine does not require magical thinking, nor does it tell women what they must and must not do with their own bodies. Pro-Choice: It's not just a pithy slogan.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #114  
Old 01-31-2020, 03:35 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
I believe that is the true, reasonable, pro-choice position. There is a pregnant person and an unborn person she is carrying. Since that relationship is without any parallel among born people, in terms of the unborn's person dependence on the pregnant person, the pregnant person's rights should be pre-eminent, including her right to kill the unborn person to preserve her own well being (not just her own literal survival, which is usually not disputed).


If I could rephrase the title of this thread, I would phrase it as "Why don't pro-choicers say 'fetus personhood doesn't matter?'" That title would have gotten more to the point I meant to convey.

As we can see from several posts in this thread thus far, there are indeed some who argue that fetus personhood is irrelevant and that a woman should have complete control over what happens in her uterus:

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
it's irrelevant to my beliefs about abortion, which are about the right to control one's own body, including access and usage by other entities (persons or otherwise) to one's body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
I argue this: It's okay to kill a person who is using your body without your permission and that a woman has more rights than a fetus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
If it's a person or a piece of tissue is irrelevant.
I analogize a woman's uterus as a sovereign nation in which she is the supreme ruler of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
The point of "Pro Choice" is that a fundamental right of all women is to completely control their own reproductive processes.



I would be curious to see how many people in the overall U.S. pro-choice movement ascribe to this viewpoint. 30 percent? 40 percent?
  #115  
Old 01-31-2020, 03:49 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The Roe Effect - which addresses this - takes largely the opposite conclusion. Children tend to follow in the political footsteps of their parents - but pro-choice people are likelier to have an abortion (although yes, some pro-life people hypocritically abort anyway) - hence abortion reduces the number of future pro-choice voters.
Your not counting immigration in that equation, and that changes the equation. We need replacements, either home grown or immigrants.

Note Trump is working both of them, ending abortion rights & ending immigration and the republicans are eating it up.

Abortion or not, we will need people to debate this subject into the future.

Last edited by kanicbird; 01-31-2020 at 03:51 PM.
  #116  
Old 01-31-2020, 04:05 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
I believe that is the true, reasonable, pro-choice position.
But I'm pretty sure you think abortion is morally wrong, so I'm not sure you contribute to the consensus of pro-choice thought.
  #117  
Old 01-31-2020, 05:59 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
My belief is that the human entity can be defined as a soul, the brain is the interface to interpret the senses of the body and do some processing and storage. Though without the brain the soul would not be interfaced to its body in that respect.

I also consider the heart the physical seat of the soul (the heart is not the soul, but it is the physical manifestation from the soul), so there would be understanding of 'home' and 'Love'.
That's a religious position; and as such can't reasonably be expected to have an impact on the opinions of anyone who doesn't share that specific religious opinion, and shouldn't be expected to control secular law.

In scientific mode, in an ordinary meaning of the word 'understanding', the heart can't 'understand' anything; it hasn't got any of the necessary wiring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Sponge View Post
It would take away the pro-life argument that the pro-choice side is being unscientific, but it ultimately changes nothing.
That's a pro-life argument? I suppose it might be; but what I see much more often is a pro-choice argument that the anti-choice side is being unscientific, in attempting to assign capabilities to early-stage fetuses that just aren't there yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post
We don't really know where that line, though. Scientists make a guess based on how we tend to define a person, but we really don't know. Pro-lifers prefer to air on the side of caution and say, "since we don't know, it's best not to guess." Pro-choicers draw a line in the sand.
Many modern anti-choicers draw a line in the sand: at conception.

Pro-choicers, IME, aren't drawing a line in the sand as to when there's a person, but are acknowledging that as a blurry grey area while simultaneously acknowledging that as a matter of practicality any law on the subject does need to draw a sharp line. The practical line often suggested, of 'at the moment of birth', is so suggested not because this defines a logical moment of 'becoming a person', but because it defines a logical moment after which separating the fates of mother and progeny is easily physically possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post
I'd like to know what pro-choicers feel about the violent death of a wanted fetus. Say a pregnant woman is mugged, and being hit in the stomach resulted in the fetus dying. How should the mugger be charged?
It ought to be a crime; and it ought to be a serious one. If the death of a wanted fetus is either intended by the assaulter, or could reasonably have been a foreseeable result of the assaulter's actions, I'd treat it as seriously as rape with grievious bodily damage. It's an equally serious crime against the woman: her body has been invaded against her will and permanent damage has been done. But it ought to be its own crime; not the same crime as killing a legal person.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
I'd say by rejecting mine you have discredited yours in the process.
That makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Anyone's entitled to reject anyone else's religious belief.

At least, unless you took that to mean that you thought Quicksilver was saying they rejected it on your behalf: that is, that you thought Quicksilver was saying you're not entitled to believe it. You are entitled to believe it; but you're not entitled to expect anyone else to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
We have pretty good birth control, but I agree on your second point. However that involves making people more responsible when it comes to sex
I agree that responsibility in this area is a very good idea; but, even aside from the existence of rape, we don't have birth control anywhere near good enough to guarantee that responsible people taking reasonable precautions will never get pregnant. Failure rates of even less than 1% will amount to a significant number of unwanted pregnancies in a population of hundreds of millions or billions of people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
If most abortions were unneeded because of nobody getting pregnant when they didn't want to be, Planned Parenthood would go out of business.
No they wouldn't. Almost all of what they do is provide general health services, including both to those who wish to become pregnant and to those who don't or at least don't at a given moment; and provide birth control. If there were almost no abortions, Planned Parenthood would cheer, and keep on doing their main work.

Attempts to close down Planned Parenthood are going to result in more abortions, not fewer, because they'll make it harder to access birth control.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
that 'unique relationship between mother and unborn child' gets progressively less unique closer to birth. If the argument is 'I don't have to explain to *you* why it's the mother's categorical right to terminate the pregnancy till birth, it just is, end of story', you don't have to deal with gradations of uniqueness of the unique relationship as the unborn develops from a few cells to moments before birth. It's just the mother's right to end the unborn person's life till birth, that's the rule, period. Which works if you have the votes to sustain it.

But because I think a lot of people subconsciously realize it is a matter of competing rights of mother and unborn person, that's why hardline pro-choice has trouble with public opinion on late term abortion.
Hope it's not a hijack, but this one keeps coming up. Where is this idea that late-term abortions are generally due to some whim of the pregnant woman coming from? Late-term abortions are at least almost always due to something having gone seriously wrong with the pregnancy, whether with the mother's health or with the fetus' health, that either hadn't gone wrong until late in the pregnancy or hadn't been discovered until late in the pregnancy. Why are people imagining large numbers of women who carry willingly for eight or eight and a half months and then decide to abort for entirely non-health-related reasons in a fashion causing the death of the fetus, plus significant numbers of doctors willing to perform such procedures?

Last edited by thorny locust; 01-31-2020 at 06:02 PM. Reason: or isn't of and at isn't after
  #118  
Old 01-31-2020, 06:12 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590

Why don't pro-lifers just say, "We want to control woman's bodies, but it's for their own good?"


Wouldn't that demolish pro-choice arguments in one fell swoop? It would be acknowledging the pro-choice argument (that a woman has a right to bodily autonomy) while also brushing it aside at the same time.
  #119  
Old 01-31-2020, 06:40 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
...

No they wouldn't. Almost all of what they do is provide general health services, including both to those who wish to become pregnant and to those who don't or at least don't at a given moment; and provide birth control. If there were almost no abortions, Planned Parenthood would cheer, and keep on doing their main work.

Attempts to close down Planned Parenthood are going to result in more abortions, not fewer, because they'll make it harder to access birth control....
And more dead Mothers and babies. Lots more. So much for "pro-life".
  #120  
Old 01-31-2020, 06:52 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And more dead Mothers and babies. Lots more. So much for "pro-life".
There are numerous ways to demonstrate that so-called pro-life people don't actually believe abortion is murder and don't actually care about the death of children. Two other big ones are that if abortions were actually murder they'd be rioting in the streets over so much government-condoned murder happening, and if they actually cared about the death of children they'd make damned certain that mothers were given the support of the state after having a child via supporting social welfare programs for the poor.

The evidence is ironclad that so-called pro-lifers fall into three categories:

1) Persons who think that abortions are sorta kinda bad, but only bad enough to barely lift a finger and check a box on a voting ballot and maybe carry a sign around for a while. While also not giving a crap if they die after birth, because they're supporting the party of abandoning mothers and children at birth.

2) Persons who don't give a crap about abortions and child death and really see this as an issue of control - they think that women should be controlled, having abortions only when THEY want women to have abortions and no other time.

3) Persons who are in prison for murdering doctors and firebombing planned parenthoods.
  #121  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:23 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post
We don't really know where that line, though. Scientists make a guess based on how we tend to define a person, but we really don't know.
Yes, that's the point: we don't know objectively where to draw that line, because that line doesn't exist in any identifiable biological sense. "Personhood" is a social construct, not a scientific fact.

So yeah, we as a society have to make an arbitrary decision about where we think it makes the most sense to draw that line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac
I'd like to know what pro-choicers feel about the violent death of a wanted fetus. Say a pregnant woman is mugged, and being hit in the stomach resulted in the fetus dying. How should the mugger be charged?
What Voyager said, perhaps with extra severity for having caused irreparable harm to the mother-to-be in the death of her child.

Yes, I said "child", because if the pregnant woman considers her wanted fetus to be a child right from the get-go, then I'm considering it that way too. Socially speaking, it's entirely up to a pregnant woman whether she wants to consider her early-term embryo/fetus a person or not, and other people should respect her choice. Personhood is a social construct, as I said, and in early pregnancy it can depend on a variety of individual circumstances that don't have to be consistent over time or from one individual to another.

But legally speaking, as Voyager also said, declaring an early-term fetus to be officially a person is opening up a completely impracticable can of worms, because legal status is supposed to be consistent. Should parents-to-be need to get a conception certificate to document their embryo's existence, as we require birth certificates for born persons? Should all miscarriages be investigated like any other untimely death from unknown causes? Legally assigning a fetus full personhood status is something that's impossible to carry through consistently.
  #122  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:47 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
What Voyager said, perhaps with extra severity for having caused irreparable harm to the mother-to-be in the death of her child.

Yes, I said "child", because if the pregnant woman considers her wanted fetus to be a child right from the get-go, then I'm considering it that way too. Socially speaking, it's entirely up to a pregnant woman whether she wants to consider her early-term embryo/fetus a person or not, and other people should respect her choice. Personhood is a social construct, as I said, and in early pregnancy it can depend on a variety of individual circumstances that don't have to be consistent over time or from one individual to another.
Speaking of being unable to carry definitions through consistently, you can't possibly be serious in saying that the fetus is a "child" because the mom says so, or you'd be saying the mugger should be charged with murder.

What would be consistent would be recognizing that the fetus is an irreplaceable possession with (in this case) tremendous sentimental value. I dunno how the law works regarding that, but it seems reasonable to apply such law to a destroyed fetus too. Of course this would also mean that if the person doesn't value their irreplaceable possessions, then the person is free to destroy them or have them destroyed if they wish.
  #123  
Old 01-31-2020, 08:43 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Speaking of being unable to carry definitions through consistently, you can't possibly be serious in saying that the fetus is a "child" because the mom says so, or you'd be saying the mugger should be charged with murder.
I've heard this POV expressed that the fetus is a human at the will of the mother. In a age of legal abortion it does make sense. A fetus that will be aborted, if it is somehow harmed or killed by someone, no harm no fowl as far as the fetus goes as that was never a person. However if the mother did plan to keep the child, and it is thus harmed/killed, the fetus could be considered human and murder/manslaughter charges could apply. This would also legally allow abortions as the mother wanting an abortion has never given human rights to that fetus.

Quote:
What would be consistent would be recognizing that the fetus is an irreplaceable possession with (in this case) tremendous sentimental value. I dunno how the law works regarding that, but it seems reasonable to apply such law to a destroyed fetus too. Of course this would also mean that if the person doesn't value their irreplaceable possessions, then the person is free to destroy them or have them destroyed if they wish.
This is basically old testament law, the killing of a fetus was basically a property crime against the woman which was a civil fine. There was no hint that it was a taking of a life in that, nor any rights for the unborn acknowledged.

Last edited by kanicbird; 01-31-2020 at 08:45 PM.
  #124  
Old 01-31-2020, 11:23 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Per the new GD rules, I'm hoping this can be a thread for a narrow focus on just one aspect of the abortion debate, without morphing into the same old abortion debate we've had for decades - hope the mods can clamp down on any hijacking:



For decades, there has been this ongoing war of words over whether a fetus is a person or not, with some saying it is, and some saying "a fetus is just a piece of human tissue," and some holding other views. But surprisingly rarely do you hear the pro-choice side ever just say, "Yes, abortion kills a person, but it's a unique circumstance not fully analogous to anything else."
Such a concession would demolish the pro-choice argument for all but the most ardent abortion activists. First, the situation is hardly unique. Every person on this earth is here because we spent time in our mother's womb. Humanity cannot survive without such a period of time inside a woman.

Conceding personhood would present the "choice" for what it is: on one side you have the killing of a person while on the other you have the inconvenience of the mother who (putting aside the rape exception) has consented to sex and the possibility of pregnancy.

Looking at this balance of harms, there is really no dispute in my mind where the greater harm lies.

The "but the baby is an intruder or trespasser so it can be killed" argument is absurd as it makes wrongdoers out of all humans who have ever lived.

Roe itself would have come out differently with such a concession. There the balance was the woman's choice versus a mere potentiality of human life and held definitely not to be a person. That makes the balance more difficult, but one as I have said before is for legislation, not any constitutional right.
  #125  
Old 01-31-2020, 11:47 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The "but the baby is an intruder or trespasser so it can be killed" argument is absurd as it makes wrongdoers out of all humans who have ever lived.
Nonsense. Many humans were invited.

According to the supposed logic of your argument, every human who ever entered somebody else's house is a trespasser, and everyone who ever had sex was a rapist. You're claiming that whether I want someone inside my house, or inside my body, makes no difference whatsoever.
  #126  
Old 01-31-2020, 11:48 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3
A fetus or embryo is simultaneously alive and human and
...not a person.
But that's the point. I don't think we need to denigrate the embryo into "something less than" in order to legitimate the killing of it. She is mom, she is woman. It's her body, it's her potential child. It's really not just a clump of cells, just tissue; if she wanted it and someone aborted her pregnancy without her consent, that would surely be a crime. But it's also a part of her body and she gets to consent or decline consent and choose to abort regardless of the fact that what she's aborting is a human living person just like us.

It's not its lack of personhood or its lack of being human or it's lack of being independently alive or whatever that makes it OK for her to do this. It's who she is that makes it OK for her to do this. She's in charge.
  #127  
Old 02-01-2020, 01:57 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In fact the anti-abortionists (They are not pro-life), do just the opposite. They fight hard against Prenatal care as it is often mixed in with birth control and even abortion advice. For example in the liberal Pro-choice state California, the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, reduced the rate of child or mother deaths due to childbirth by half:
Fascinating. Thank you for that.
  #128  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:53 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
Not to get off-topic, but Hitler was hardly a Christian, he was involved in the occult. And he was not anti-abortion, only against aborting Aryans.
Wasn't it uncovered that Margaret Sanger wanted abortion because it would get rid of black babies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZPG Zealot View Post
No, that's a lie the anti-abortion movement tries to spread by quoting one of her letters out of context.
Snopes on the subject

Sanger was asked to speak at a rally of the women's branch of the Klan, and she went out of curiosity. When asked about it, she said the women of the Klan were very single minded in their thinking.

Anyone who thinks about this for about twenty seconds would realize that the all male, anti-women Klan would never let a women speak to them at all, ever. But the anti-abortion movement is not above lying to get their desired results.
  #129  
Old 02-01-2020, 10:06 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,459
There's also the anti-abortion argument that the mother has no say in whether to continue with the pregnancy, as pregnancy is "nothing" and the fetus has the right to use the mother's body because "God put it there."
  #130  
Old 02-01-2020, 10:47 AM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
There is a odd offshoot about this.

Many pro-lifers are republicans. End abortion, end birth control and we will have many home grown babies who will more tend to vote republican..
Home grown? As opposed to the ones you can get in the store or through a foreign fair trade?
__________________
I want to know what happened pre malone
  #131  
Old 02-01-2020, 10:49 AM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 306
I am a "pro-lifer" who wants birth control taught in schools (it wasn't when I was taught) and free birth control for men and women.
__________________
I want to know what happened pre malone
  #132  
Old 02-01-2020, 12:24 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Snopes on the subject

Sanger was asked to speak at a rally of the women's branch of the Klan, and she went out of curiosity. When asked about it, she said the women of the Klan were very single minded in their thinking...

Anyone who thinks about this for about twenty seconds would realize that the all male, anti-women Klan would never let a women speak to them at all, ever. But the anti-abortion movement is not above lying to get their desired results.
Thank you. I've heard that claim, but never did the research to refute it. Now I have a handy link I can find if I ever run across it again.
  #133  
Old 02-01-2020, 12:30 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Yes, that's the point: we don't know objectively where to draw that line, because that line doesn't exist in any identifiable biological sense. "Personhood" is a social construct, not a scientific fact.

So yeah, we as a society have to make an arbitrary decision about where we think it makes the most sense to draw that line.
We do that in many areas. We draw arbitrary lines on spectrums delineating one side from the other. There is not scientific reason why a zillion sand particles is not a heap, but a zillion plus one is, it is a social construct that we have chosen.

Is there a scientific definition of an adult? Can you use science to tell the difference between a 17 year old the day before his birthday and an 18 year old the day after? Can science tell us what has changed that turns a child into an adult?

Quote:

What Voyager said, perhaps with extra severity for having caused irreparable harm to the mother-to-be in the death of her child.

Yes, I said "child", because if the pregnant woman considers her wanted fetus to be a child right from the get-go, then I'm considering it that way too. Socially speaking, it's entirely up to a pregnant woman whether she wants to consider her early-term embryo/fetus a person or not, and other people should respect her choice. Personhood is a social construct, as I said, and in early pregnancy it can depend on a variety of individual circumstances that don't have to be consistent over time or from one individual to another.

But legally speaking, as Voyager also said, declaring an early-term fetus to be officially a person is opening up a completely impracticable can of worms, because legal status is supposed to be consistent. Should parents-to-be need to get a conception certificate to document their embryo's existence, as we require birth certificates for born persons? Should all miscarriages be investigated like any other untimely death from unknown causes? Legally assigning a fetus full personhood status is something that's impossible to carry through consistently.
I believe that a fetus should have exactly the rights that the mother wishes to extend to it. If she wants to consider it to be a "person" with all the rights that a person should have, then she should be able to press charges against someone who causes harm to her wanted child. She should be able to initiate an investigation into a miscarriage, and hold any parties responsible to the same as though they had killed a newborn. Also, if she wants to consider it to be an unwanted burden on her body and her life, and wishes to discard it, I absolutely support that decision as well.

There is only one person in the world who is actually equipped to make the decision, and I actually rather resent those who will never have to make such a decision trying to take it away from her.
  #134  
Old 02-01-2020, 12:38 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
Home grown? As opposed to the ones you can get in the store or through a foreign fair trade?
If you read the rest it was answered, foreign fair trade imported would be the alternative to home grown babies.
  #135  
Old 02-01-2020, 01:00 PM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Thank you. I've heard that claim, but never did the research to refute it. Now I have a handy link I can find if I ever run across it again.
You are welcome, though one "pro-lifer" told me "Snopes is not a reliable sight." He could not refute my claim that the Klan would never let a woman tell them what to do, or listen to her.
  #136  
Old 02-01-2020, 01:28 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
I am a "pro-lifer" who wants birth control taught in schools (it wasn't when I was taught) and free birth control for men and women.
Good for you, but you still don't understand the value of Planned Parenthood. Get an understanding of how much good they do, even by your standards, and starting pushing birth control education, access, and (non abortion if you must) PP funding on your fellow pro-lifers and we'll find some common ground.
  #137  
Old 02-01-2020, 01:48 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 306
Something occurred to me last night; what of the men who have gotten these women pregnant, they have to stand by and watch the women kill their children who may have been born. I'm not a man, but it occurred to me, what of their rights?
__________________
I want to know what happened pre malone
  #138  
Old 02-01-2020, 02:37 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
Something occurred to me last night; what of the men who have gotten these women pregnant, they have to stand by and watch the women kill their children who may have been born. I'm not a man, but it occurred to me, what of their rights?
Their rights don't override the woman's rights. At any rate, not unless and until we can magick the fetus out of her body and into theirs.

And that may just have occured to you last night, but it's a really old argument.
  #139  
Old 02-01-2020, 03:12 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
Something occurred to me last night; what of the men who have gotten these women pregnant, they have to stand by and watch the women kill their children who may have been born. I'm not a man, but it occurred to me, what of their rights?
Do I have a right to your body? If I have sex with you, does that mean that you may have to give up your bodily autonomy to me for 9 or so months?

I do think that the father is about the only person other than the mother who's opinion means anything, but their opinion should be in no way binding upon her actions.
  #140  
Old 02-01-2020, 08:18 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
Something occurred to me last night; what of the men who have gotten these women pregnant, they have to stand by and watch the women kill their children who may have been born. I'm not a man, but it occurred to me, what of their rights?
If we men have the right to stop a woman from removing the fetus within her, should we also have the right to force her to remove the fetus? After all, we might want to avoid child support.
Likewise, if a man could prevent an abortion, shouldn't he be responsible for 100% of child support?

Maybe it is just easier to let the woman decide.
  #141  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:43 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
Something occurred to me last night; what of the men who have gotten these women pregnant, they have to stand by and watch the women kill their children who may have been born. I'm not a man, but it occurred to me, what of their rights?
Men have different rights and choices because they have different bodies. They have to make their peace with reality before sex. Women get to make different choices because the fetus is literally mining their bodies and putting their lives at risk. To give men the same choices as a pregnant woman is give men rights that do not exist because of nature. You can't make the situation equal.

Something else: having sex is not consent to give control of one's body and fate to a fetus, because sex does not produce pregnancy every time. Use of any form of birth control destroys that argument.

All this talk about the fathers' "rights" to force the woman to do something-----while apparently making men be responsible is a bridge too far----hints at something else. How far is it till just forcing a fetus onto a woman is acceptable?
  #142  
Old 02-02-2020, 07:42 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
...
Something else: having sex is not consent to give control of one's body and fate to a fetus, because sex does not produce pregnancy every time. Use of any form of birth control destroys that argument.

....
That is ridiculous

BC certainly does not destroy the argument, nor does that sex does not always equal pregnancy. If sex has a probability of pregnancy and the couple take that risk, that is enough. Unless the BC method brings that probability down to zero, which non of them do statistically, then BC is just having sex with a lower chance of pregnancy.

If one plays russian roulette, one does not absolve oneself of a bullet. If a bullet comes out, it's yours. One is only absolved if no bullet comes out.

There are other reasons to support abortion rights, but this is certainly not one.

Last edited by kanicbird; 02-02-2020 at 07:43 AM.
  #143  
Old 02-02-2020, 08:26 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Do I have a right to your body? If I have sex with you, does that mean that you may have to give up your bodily autonomy to me for 9 or so months?

I do think that the father is about the only person other than the mother who's opinion means anything, but their opinion should be in no way binding upon her actions.
This.

On the flip side, I would support the right of a man to walk away from the baby prior to its birth. To renounce paternal rights and responsibilities. I get why the tax man wants men to pay, but that seems unfair to me. We are a wealthy enough society that we could spread out that cost.
  #144  
Old 02-02-2020, 09:45 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,954
I've posted this essay on abortion by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan before because it actually changed me years ago from being pro-life to pro-choice. The general argument is that it doesn't matter when life begins, because that's not the important question; we kill animals, who are clearly alive, all the time. The issue is when does distinctly human life begin.

You can't possibly argue that human life begins at conception because a single human cell is clearly not a human. If you were to argue that killing a cell is akin to murder, then every cell biologist in the world would be a mass murderer because we kill human cells all the time. So, what should be the yardstick? These guys argue that distinctly human brain waves begin around 30 weeks of gestation. So rather than have the "life begins at conception" vs "life begins at birth" false dichotomy, this offers a more realistic and rational basis for determining when this is actually killing a human being.
  #145  
Old 02-02-2020, 11:24 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
That is ridiculous

BC certainly does not destroy the argument, nor does that sex does not always equal pregnancy. If sex has a probability of pregnancy and the couple take that risk, that is enough. Unless the BC method brings that probability down to zero, which non of them do statistically, then BC is just having sex with a lower chance of pregnancy.

If one plays russian roulette, one does not absolve oneself of a bullet. If a bullet comes out, it's yours. One is only absolved if no bullet comes out.

There are other reasons to support abortion rights, but this is certainly not one.

Playing Russian Roulette with more than thirty chambers is a but different.

If sex is consent to pregnancy, then I guess men should be required to make deposits in a fund every time they have sex, yet strangely, the onlyargiments ever made are that men should have the ability to stroll away from children, or else they get veto power over womens' choices.
  #146  
Old 02-02-2020, 11:33 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
This.

On the flip side, I would support the right of a man to walk away from the baby prior to its birth. To renounce paternal rights and responsibilities. I get why the tax man wants men to pay, but that seems unfair to me. We are a wealthy enough society that we could spread out that cost.
Then society pays for mens' desire to be irresponsible. The woman pays no matter what, and then she gets to pay 100%.

The reason child support is inescapable and should remain so is the one argument anti-choicers never seem to make: what's best for the kid. Once born, the kid needs support. Two parents created it, exactly why do men get a special right that foists their responsibility off on women in particular and society in general?
  #147  
Old 02-02-2020, 02:36 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Playing Russian Roulette with more than thirty chambers is a but different.

If sex is consent to pregnancy,...
It is, it's the way it works, you can't change that any more then you can change the speed of light constant.

Well stating it perhaps somewhat better, consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy, thus the possibility of a fetus in one's uterus.

Now I'm not saying you can not evict the fetus, and I actually support your right to do so if you so desire, but one can not absolve themselves from being pregnant nor absolve oneself from a fetus/embryo/zygote using part of your body because they used BC during sex.

It also does not absolve one from having to make the choice to keep or abort if such a choice exists.

The way you phrase it we have the ridiculous case that the women comes in and says I am pregnant but we used condoms, and the doctor says ok I will have to remove that, it doesn't count. It is anti-choice and demeaning to women, not respecting their responsibility in the choice.

Last edited by kanicbird; 02-02-2020 at 02:37 PM.
  #148  
Old 02-02-2020, 02:38 PM
Kropotkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North
Posts: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
An appendix has no potential to grow up to go to school, college, work a job, have a family, vote, use Facebook, drive a car, etc.
But an asshole can grow up to hold high elected and corporate office.
  #149  
Old 02-02-2020, 02:57 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
I've posted this essay on abortion by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan before because it actually changed me years ago from being pro-life to pro-choice. The general argument is that it doesn't matter when life begins, because that's not the important question; we kill animals, who are clearly alive, all the time. .
Yes, and many think its a horrible murder to kill animals, but fetus's are okay.
__________________
I want to know what happened pre malone
  #150  
Old 02-02-2020, 03:59 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Then society pays for mens' desire to be irresponsible. The woman pays no matter what, and then she gets to pay 100%.

The reason child support is inescapable and should remain so is the one argument anti-choicers never seem to make: what's best for the kid. Once born, the kid needs support. Two parents created it, exactly why do men get a special right that foists their responsibility off on women in particular and society in general?
The woman pays something, but she doesn't have to pay for 18 years, not under current law. She can chose an abortion. She can (in many states) abandon the baby at a police station or emergency room and run away. She can almost always give it up for adoption.

But if she wants to keep it, the father is on the hook.

There's not a great answer. But I'm not convinced this is the best one.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017