Abortion-clinic picketers.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Prior to Roe v. Wade person was synonymous with human. Roe v. Wade was the one which separated the two.

Oh, that’s not true at all. At various times and in various states the word “person” did not apply to slaves and/or women, and even the 14th Amendment, while citing “persons”, did not make it equivalent to “humans”. Forther, in Roe, Section IX notes that “the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

So basically, just being human doesn’t guarantee personhood. Often, one has to fight for a favourable court decision that establishes a precedent that one’s group (non-white or non-male or other once-disqualifying criteria) is indeed made up of persons, and by the time of Roe, nobody had done so on behalf of fetuses.

Or, to the best of my knowledge, since.

Please do. It will make it so much easier to point out that SCOTUS once asserted the same things along the lines of Blacks and being citizens of the U.S.

Are you suggesting that since blacks were once not considered persons, but now are, we should automatically do the same for fetuses? If not, then perhaps I’ve missed your point.

In any case, if you want to make a fetus a person, citizen… whatever, go ahead. It doesn’t affect my arguments at all.

Zero. And you know why? Because I didn’t make them.

I fail to see the relevance. You’re calling for these pregnancies to be continued, yet are indifferent to the costs involved. I figure you should be prepared to adopt the resulting children or at least pay significantly for the costs of their upkeep.

And if you prefer instead that the people who “made” the fetus should pay the costs, than I don’t see why you’d deny them access to the cheapest solution - an abortion.

Again, with this argument. As I pointed out before, and will continue to point out, it’s a red herring. I’m just going to quote myself:

I don’t think reality is a “red herring”, myself, nor is asking for a realistic assessment of what might happen if one’s moral views were put into action. After all, you’re not citing scripture or philosophy, but case law. And yet when I ask for real-world examples or real-world analysis, suddenly the issue is back in the realm of the philosophical.

You think a country has to fall into anarchy to have fallen into a moral black hole?

I’ve no idea what happens when a country falls into a “moral black hole”. What exactly is a “moral black hole”, in the sense of how you’re using the term? Is this something with noticeable effects of any kind, or are angels keeping an invisible tally to be dealt with on Judgement Day, or what?

[Czarcasm]

Will someone tell me where the goalposts are, please? classyladyhp has made three different claims:

1. It is a human being at conception(fertilization).
2. It is a human being when the the fertilized egg is implanted.
3. It is a human being when the heart is beating.

Which is it?

[irishgirl]

CLHP,OMGABC etc: Abortion is bad, mmkay?

Got it.
Understand where you come from, don’t agree with you, but I’ve got it.

Now- what are you going to do to reduce it?

Hint- it isn’t going to be “Make it illegal”.
Cite.

With the highest abortion rates in countries where abortion is illegal and unsafe, and 500,000 million women dying every year from abortion I respectfully suggest that standing outside an abortion clinic in suburban America is REALLY not where the pro-life should be focusing their energies in order to do the most good.

Why not air-lift some contraceptives to Africa, where rather than an “inconvenience” having another child might actually condemn the children the woman already has to starvation because she literally can’t afford another mouth to feed, and where abortion rates are nearly twice that of the USA.

[classyladyhp]

@Kobal2

Repeat after me:
An embryo is not a baby.
An embryo is not a baby.
An embryo is not a baby.

Now write it a hundred times for penance, young lady, and err no more.

Also, if you think choosing abortion is the “easy way out”, you’re living in fucking la-la land. All the more reason not to listen to what you have to say, never mind enshrine it into law.

Abortion is seriously a lot easier than raising a child into adulthood. Abortion takes what? 5 minutes to complete. And why pray tell do you think it is such a difficult decision? Could it be because some women are racked with guilt after the procedure having realized that they just let a Dr. tear apart their own flesh and blood?

[heatmiserfl]

@AlienVessels

Thing is, she really only needs one axiom, i.e. it’s a human life at conception.

But she’s not even consistent with her basic axiom. She is using a definition of conception that includes implantation as her definition of human life. This definition as the ‘beginning of a human life’ is completely wrong. If I were to use the anti-abortion argument of ‘human life begins at conception’, it would have to involve the initial fertilization. At least at that point one could say that a new diploid cell was formed. Implantation should not enter the equation. Nevertheless, she uses that, then tacks on implantation in order to rationalize embryos in a freezer.

Requiring implantation emphasizes her admission that this is clearly a protection of a potential baby even if she won’t admit that herself. She also stresses the fact that a tumor, even if it possesses all the genetic material of a human being, is not a human because it can’t develop into a human person eventually.

So her arguments of fertilized egg = person are not logical even within her own claims.

ETA: Looks like Czarcasm spelled out what I was saying.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@classyladyhp

Abortion is seriously a lot easier than raising a child into adulthood.

So, it’s your contention that every instance of abortion is a loss of a child that could or would be raised into adulthood?

Abortion takes what? 5 minutes to complete. And why pray tell do you think it is such a difficult decision?

It’s a medical procedure that can be painful, complicated and the effects of which can last for days. But difficult may not just refer to the decision to have it. Sometimes difficult means harder to access. In elective abortion, however, it is the option with most utility, whether difficult or easy.

Could it be because some women are racked with guilt after the procedure having realized that they just let a Dr. tear apart their own flesh and blood?

I have no doubt this is true in some cases. But it certainly isn’t true in all. Believe it or not, some women suffer guilt over giving their offspring up for adoption. Some women feel guilt over not being able to provide adequately for their children. Some women feel guilt that their babies died shortly after birth due to birth defects. Some women feel guilt that their child committed suicide. Some women feel guilt for not being able to make others feel guilty about their own actions.

None of that has any relevance whatsoever on allowing each of those women to make their own choices with regard to their own bodily autonomy.

Now, would you like to answer *my *questions?

[Zeriel]

@AlienVessels

I disagree with your metric. Nobody is making the claim that the embryo is the same.

In my opinion, then, you need to have additional logical structure that quantifies the differences–and at that point, you’ve lost your single axiom and you’ve opened another door (if it’s different, then it can have different rights).

It just meets the minimum criteria. And “all other things being equal” is about as rare as encountering 500 human embryos in the real world.

Suppose the scenario takes place in a fertility clinic freezer. =P

IMO, the best way to attack their side is education.

Probably true, but I rather enjoy constructing lovely edifices of logic.

[Annie-Xmas]

@classyladyhp

The baby’s right to life is more important than the women’s choice to do what she wants with her own body. There are 2 bodies involved here not just one.

The law says otherwise. If you don’t like it, get the law changed. But stop harassing women who are performing legal acts.

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Man, that’s a stupid quote but given who said it, I wouldn’t be surprised. An action is not rationalized based on the feelings of the individual engaging in that action.

Yeah, look at what happened to the speaker. Pro-lifers do agree with stopping some beating hearts and brain waves.

[AlienVessels]

@Zeriel

In my opinion, then, you need to have additional logical structure that quantifies the differences–and at that point, you’ve lost your single axiom and you’ve opened another door (if it’s different, then it can have different rights).

Suppose the scenario takes place in a fertility clinic freezer. =P

Probably true, but I rather enjoy constructing lovely edifices of logic.

You don’t need all that. You just need the Principle of Charity. Everyone here knows what she means even if they disagree. They’re just slicing thinner with their logic probes than she can defend.

We can devise moral dilemmas for just about any occasion. We’re human beings and we don’t work on ultimate levels of completeness nor consistency.

Do you also construct houses of cards in wind tunnels? I admire determination.

[purplehorseshoe]

@classyladyhp

Abortion is seriously a lot easier than raising a child into adulthood. Abortion takes what? 5 minutes to complete. And why pray tell do you think it is such a difficult decision? Could it be because some women are racked with guilt after the procedure having realized that they just let a Dr. tear apart their own flesh and blood?

I had a couple of moles removed the other month. Should I feel guilty about that? After all, a doctor tore apart my own flesh …

[irishgirl]

500,000 million women dying every year from abortion

Argh- missed edit window, away from computer.

This should of course be 500,000 women or half a million women- I obviously couldn’t decide which to type.

Sorry.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

So…

We have protesters who block, intimidate, offend and yell at women who are entering a clinic. The protests may in many cases cause emotional trauma to these women and their families. Most of these women are not even going in for an abortion.
Some of the women will not go for a pap smear, or other medical appointments, because of the fear of intimidation. They will suffer. Some will not go to the clinic for birth control. They will get accidentally pregnant, adding to the problem.
Of the tiny fraction of women going to the clinic - if they were to go through with the pregnancy, some of them would die (statistical fact). Others would be emotional wrecks. Others would have to curtail educational opportunities. Some would suffer the breakup of families. Some who have other children already would see those children suffer. A few who give up the child for adoption would suffer great remorse. Extended families of these women would pay the price as well.

The protesters justification is that they have a belief that a zygote is a human being. This belief is not based in fact or science, but mainly in a 2000 year old book, written by middle eastern nomadic shepherds.

The positive result for the protesters is if some of the tiny fraction of women who are going to the clinic for an abortion do not go through with it…
Then they have added to the population another child who is not wanted, may be medically at risk or otherwise damaged.

But God is appeased, so it’s a great tradeoff.

[classyladyhp]

@purplehorseshoe

I had a couple of moles removed the other month. Should I feel guilty about that? After all, a doctor tore apart my own flesh …

Oh don’t be ridiculous. Can’t you come up with anything better:smack:
Yes you should feel guilty:rolleyes:
Not because of the moles though.

[Czarcasm]

@Czarcasm

Will someone tell me where the goalposts are, please? classyladyhp has made three different claims:

1. It is a human being at conception(fertilization).
2. It is a human being when the the fertilized egg is implanted.
3. It is a human being when the heart is beating.

Which is it?

Well, classyladyhp?

[Meyer6]

@classyladyhp

Abortion is seriously a lot easier than raising a child into adulthood. Abortion takes what? 5 minutes to complete. And why pray tell do you think it is such a difficult decision? Could it be because some women are racked with guilt after the procedure having realized that they just let a Dr. tear apart their own flesh and blood?

Lots of medical decisions are difficult. There are often lots of factors to consider. There is no evidence that supports the idea that women overwhelmingly regret or feel guilty about having an abortion. Research indicates that relief is the most common emotional response following abortion, and that psychological distress appears to be greatest before, rather than after, an abortion.*

Some women feel guilty, sure. Part of the reason for that is that they’ve been brainwashed by the religious right. But a few may genuinely regret what they did. So what? Because somebody once regretted a decision made for the wrong reasons that means nobody else should ever get to make that decision again?

• Yes, this is from a pro-choice site, but it cites research from the American Psychological Association.

[cosmosdan]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Anyway, yes, mental gymnastics. I find it funny-- well, maybe moreso odd than anything else-- is that a woman’s actions here are being argued to be constrained by her intent, the latter of which is being assumed to give birth to a healthy (and wanted!) child because she didn’t abort the child.

Of course it’s about her intent. Our system of laws, our concept of justice , has a lot to do with intent. I’m sure most anti abortionists feel their intent is to save lives, or protect the innocent, or something other than to oppress women and deny them their rights. While intent is very relevant, it’s not everything. The actual consequences, foreseen and otherwise have to be considered. Laws are often about balancing certain principles

Aside from the fact that such an argument rests on the assumption that the unborn only has worth so long as the mother doesn’t abort it (!)

,
The assumption is that it’s her right to decide whether to continue being pregnant or not. The assumption is that conception doesn’t automatically grant person hood and equal or over riding rights to an embryo. Women have been making that decision for centuries, and were in this country before certain forces decided it should be illegal.

you still run into the issue where the woman’s right to bodily autonomy is being subverted by others because it may be in that future child’s best interest to do so. And if it can be argued that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy can be subverted in the interest of that future child to prevent that child from suffering unnecessarily, then it stands to reason that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy can be subverted in order to ensure that said future child has a life, period.

There’s no argument of whether body autonomy is able to be subverted. History provides us with plenty of examples to show it’s very possible. The question is whether it is just in this case. Whether it serves society’s best interests, in relation to individual rights.

Either that future child matters, in which case the mother’s actions can be restricted to ensure the best for that future child, or it doesn’t, in which case whatever the mother decides to do during her pregnancy is really only her business.

False. It is not an either or situation and the question of individual rights is not that simple. What was that about mental gymnastics?
Very few pro choice people I’ve met claim the potential life involved in conception doesn’t matter at all. We’re saying that because of how biology works, the choice should belong to the individual, and even that is qualified by “up to a point” which is why viability is a question, as well as recklessly endangering a child you intend to have.

Killing that to which you would otherwise be responsible for is taking responsibility for your actions? lolwut? Man, what a bizarre, strange new world have I woken up in.

It’s actually not new at all. It’s really the concept of making it illegal and trying to enforce it that is relatively new to human society. So, there some mental gymnastics by you. It is completely responsible behavior for a woman to decide if she is physically, financially, emotionally, capable of caring for and nurturing a child. The irresponsible thing would be to continue to bring children into the world without being able to provide for them, or worse.

Pretty sure the mental gymnastics continues

.
No doubt. I’m reading yours right now.

Edit: Oh, and to repeat something I said earlier.
Originally Posted by Me
Unless you live in an anarchy, and even then, you either force someone to abide by your personal beliefs or you force someone to abide by yours. Let’s not kid ourselves, okay?

Um, can I assume you wrote that incorrectly, and then quoted it without noticing it’s incorrect?
I’ll acknowledge that our society and our legal system ultimately imposes a set of beliefs on others. Arguing that imposing your beliefs on someone else is wrong doesn’t cut it if that’s the entire argument. It’s not. In the case of abortion it’s often people trying top impose their religious beliefs on us, which is generally acknowledged as a negative. But, setting that aside to make a moral argument is fine, even preferred.

The individual liberties of pregnant woman, vs the non existent rights of a potential life. You can personally consider that potential life to be equal to a newborn, but that’s not the law, not the view of many of your fellow citizens, and not the view held by most societies {including ours} in history.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Please note that the Jewish perspective (even the most orthodox) differs dramatically from Christian views.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

Babies gain personhood as the head emerges. Read the end of the link all the reasons why abortion would be allowed in strict Judiaism.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

[QUOTE=Meyer6]
So you think being pro-choice is genetic?
[/quote]

Yes?

For one thing, that’s four sentences. It took me all of about two seconds to type that. So, congrats on your big victory there.

Unless you type an excess of 2,000 words a minute, I’m calling BS on the two seconds thing.

For another, it’s good to know you were just yanking my chain and actually have no good reason why thousands of unwanted babies have any ‘utility’ at all, despite the fact that you clearly claimed that they do. Nice debating technique!

Oh? Is that what it means?

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Oh, that’s not true at all. At various times and in various states the word “person” did not apply to slaves and/or women, and even the 14th Amendment, while citing “persons”, did not make it equivalent to “humans”.

No, it’s actually very true. It may be different in Canada, but in the U.S. neither slaves nor women have ever been defined as being non-persons. Even Dred Scott consistently references Blacks/slaves as persons.

Further, in Roe, Section IX notes that “the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

And SCOTUS concluded that the word person don’t have a strict post-natal application. Simply because something has not explicitly been applied to a certain group in the past doesn’t mean that group is not that thing ).

Are you suggesting that since blacks were once not considered persons, but now are, we should automatically do the same for fetuses? If not, then perhaps I’ve missed your point.

Well, one, I said citizens. Two, you said pro-choicers should embrace the idea that claims of fetal personhood are without foundation. Okay, fine. Do that. I’ll just point out to you that the same argument was made in reference to Blacks being citizens of the U.S. (based on current laws and the language contained in the Constitution, there was no assurance that the framers ever intended for Blacks to be thought of as citizens of the U.S., and as such the argument for citizenship for Blacks was without merit).

I fail to see the relevance. You’re calling for these pregnancies to be continued, yet are indifferent to the costs involved. I figure you should be prepared to adopt the resulting children or at least pay significantly for the costs of their upkeep.

Of course I’m indifferent to the costs involves. Since when is not killing someone contingent on whether or not someone else is able to support them?

And if you prefer instead that the people who “made” the fetus should pay the costs, than I don’t see why you’d deny them access to the cheapest solution - an abortion.

The same reason we, as a society, don’t kill the poor even though that would be the ‘cheapest’ solution around.

@Euphonious_Polemic

The protesters justification is that they have a belief that a zygote is a human being. This belief is not based in fact or science, but mainly in a 2000 year old book, written by middle eastern nomadic shepherds.

No, the protesters justification is this little thing called science. It’s odd to me how in the same thread some pro-choicer wants to mention education, you continue to get gems like the above statement. Education is overrated, apparently

[overlyverbose]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

<snip>
No, I base it solely on the fact that the individuals who are asserting that the fetus is equivalent to cancer and/or a tumor, or is just a small ball of cells, would never tell a woman grieving a miscarriage that it’s no big deal because it was equivalent to cancer and/or a tumor, and was just a small ball of cells.

<snip>

Babies make people happy. More babies means happier people.

Wow, this thread has really grown! I don’t normally dive in and just leave. Anyway…

For what it’s worth, when I lost my baby, that’s exactly what several people told me. “Oh, it’s just a ball of cells. It wasn’t really a baby.” And you know what? They were right. Of course, I still mourned the loss of the baby even though it was unwanted initially, and even though having it would ultimately have killed me and resulted in a damaged, likely dead child.

And though I had considered abortion when I wasn’t aware it was a tubal pregnancy, I wouldn’t have gone through with it. You see, when something unexpected happens to you - even something like having another child, which is a lifetime commitment - your first instinct is, “How can I fix this?” It’s not like my husband and I didn’t take precautions. We did. But they failed and I got pregnant.

Still, we had the financial resources to afford another child, we definitely had the emotional capacity and the thought of an addition to our family quickly grew on us. We were settling into the idea, knowing we’d make it work and love the kid unconditionally. But…

Not everyone is so lucky. There is a large group of people who simply don’t have the financial and emotional wherewithal to support a child. If I were to take all the same precautions I did earlier and still have the same result but without the financial safety net I have now and without the love and support of my family and friends, I’m not sure I wouldn’t choose an abortion. That may make me a cold and amoral person, but I do have a family to think of. I have a household to support. I’m lucky enough that I could have taken another baby in stride. But for some people, having another mouth to feed, being forced to stop working, possibly losing insurance when you need it most, can be devastating.

Also, the blanket statement that babies make people happy is silly. I love my children. They bring me a lot of joy. But having a baby was the absolute toughest thing on my marriage. Ever. If my relationship with my husband weren’t as strong as it was to begin with, the birth of my firstborn would have destroyed it long ago. Even the birth of my daughter has put strain on my marriage, though we’ve done this before. Having a kid is hard on everyone, not just the mother. I have no idea why people think that having babies in any way fixes things or makes them better. I would never unhave my kids or do anything other than what I’ve done. I love them, I love spending time with them. But even those of us who love children don’t always like the day-to-day reality of them.

[heatmiserfl]

@cosmosdan

Yes I know. That’s kinda the point and where your inconsistency lies. How about just donating blood or some other procedure that’s not generally life threatening? They can’t force that either can they?

You appear to feel it’s okay for the government to require a woman to remain pregnant when she doesn’t want to, and anti abortionists in general are willing to make those decisions about and for strangers.

IOW; it would be wrong to require you to give of your body and health to save a life {all life is sacred remember?} of a stranger, but it’s okay for you and other antiabortionists to make that decision and require that of strangers. Cool huh?

Has this been sufficiently answered yet? It seems to be ignored. As is the inconsistency of fertilization vs. implantation vs. beating heart.