“Analogisms?”
In a case of conjoined twins, an operation to separate them certainly requires parental consent, but the parents are not permitted to demand that one of the children be killed. If the death occurs, it is an unintended secondary effect.
It’s no different than if you wake up to find a homeless person squatting in your basement. You’re entitled to evict that person - even if he’s dying of pneumonia and there’s a hurricane outside. None of these abortion opponents would have any hesitation about booting that squatter out … but they expect women to put up with squatters taking over their entire bodies.
Add that to the fact non-viable foetuses don’t have functioning brains and nervous systems, hence, no personhood, and it’s hard to care much about their attempt to impose their unsupported personal beliefs on to other women’s bodies.
And once more, the push to prevent women from choosing abortion is exactly the same push that will someday prevent them from refusing abortion. It’s all the same antichoice agenda, and it’s always by the same people, who are never, except on this narrow issue, pro-life. Lord knows, noone has ever pushed a law protecting all life by insuring 20 years of health insurance regardless of the economic status of the mother
Bricker’s law will almost inevitably come to pass, but I doubt it will read as he wants it to.
It is not a strawman.
You are correct that those opposed to abortion make that argument.
But that argument is without merit.
Is the zygote a human? The blastula?
Some would say yes…at the moment of conception it is a human. Thing is neither science nor society throughout human history has believed such. Women quite frequently self-abort after conception never even knowing conception occurred. It just happens and happens at a very high rate (I forget the numbers but I want to say 40% of the time or more).
Throughout history humans have not named miscarriages nor given them burial except, perhaps, in some very rare instances (although I think there are some proposed laws coming up to try to mandate that).
The world’s major religious texts (Bible, Torah, Quran) are close to mum on abortion. IIRC there is precious little in the bible to fall back on as regards opposition to abortion. If a man causes a miscarriage he owes that family some recompense in livestock but it is not akin to murder.
Indeed the anti-abortion movement in the US was a result of conservatives looking for a wedge issue in the late 70’s. Prior to that few cared one way or another.
It is clear that at some point there is a human life there and at some point the woman has to assume responsibility. She cannot abort one minute before birth for instance. That would be ridiculous. But so too is saying it is a human life worth protection at the moment of conception.
So, we work our way towards the middle from each extreme (conception/moments before birth). Current law has it at fetus viability in most places barring some special circumstance. And that seems fine. The woman has time to make a choice for herself but at some point she has to assume the responsibility.
Outlawing abortion completely is nothing more than punitive toward women for having sex.
'Tis cromulent, per Merriam-Webster. No matter.
Okay. And in the case of abortion, the goal is to end the pregnancy. The fetus’s death can be similarly described as an unintended secondary effect, or at least I eagerly await your no-doubt persuasive and compelling argument that it could not.
For a more specific conjoined-twins example, I refer you to Hannah and Olivia McCullough, born in Colorado in 2015. The parental goal, evidently, was to improve the odds of Hannah’s survival. Separating the twins would hasten the death of Olivia, whose long-term chances of survival were deemed tenuous at best. I don’t know if at any time the parents engaged in “demanding” anything, but to the best of my knowledge, neither they nor the participating doctors and nurses have faced criminal charges relating to the case, though the hospital at one point seems to have restricted the mother’s access, saying she was “disruptive”. Accounts vary.
The point being that to the extent that separating conjoined twins are analogous to terminating an unwanted pregnancy, the notion that an unlawful killing of some sort must occur need not be universally assumed.
I understand that logic, but when I was pregnant, it was my body being used as a life support system.
Now, I’m an organ donor. I give blood every six weeks (if I’m able). I’m a charitable person who gives to feed starving kids, I’ve let friends sleep on my couch for weeks because they didn’t have another place to go. When my sister was fighting to get sober, I supported her so she wouldn’t be on the street. When my brother in law was dying of cancer, we supported him - because he couldn’t work and his social security check wouldn’t have covered his living expenses for the last year of his life. But no where else in our society do I see a place where I am obligated to do any of this in order to support someone else’s life. Only when it comes to pregnancy am I required to put my body out on the line to support someone else’s life.
If my daughter had been born and needed a bone marrow transplant - and I was a match, I could have legally said “sorry, its my bone marrow - it would be inconvenient to me to have to give it.” If my son needs a liver, and I’m a match, I don’t have to hand it over. Why is a fetus entitled to my uterus when as a child it isn’t entitled to any of my other organs, even to save its life?
I know. I saw your attempt to caveat yourself into safety, and that’s precisely what I’m calling out. No one is preventing someone else from caring for a fetus after an abortion but nature.
It’s not like they send you home with a doggie bag when you have an abortion. If you want to care for my fetus after an abortion, knock yourself out.
In either event, I’m literally able to walk away after leaving my fetus/baby with someone else.
I mean, unless, of course, I chose a medical abortion like about 20% of women. If that’s the case, you’ll have to come run my toilet water through a sieve and take what you can find. Warning, though: my periods are usually pretty chunky as it is. You’re more likely to find fragments of uterine lining than a fetus.
Ladies, you are just too gross.
My new strategy is to try to make antiabortionists as grossed out in these discussions as I am by the attempts to take away my right to bodily autonomy.
Or, I’m just out of fucks to give.
Actually, as someone with an engineering degree, I find the reproductive/gestational process somewhat fascinating in its utterly ridiculous biomechanical complexity.
I don’t romanticize it, though, imagining Jesus weeping over babies in limbo or whatever.
IIRC Limbo is no longer a “thing” in the Catholic church.
I think the new thinking is baptism on earth is good and helps you past original sin it is not strictly necessary and God will understand unbaptized babies are cool too.
That said I am not Catholic and got this from Catholic friends over drinks so I could certainly be wrong on it. I will stand by Limbo is no longer a thing though in official Catholic doctrine.
I’d heard, but the out-of-date reference suited the utterly irreverent tone I was seeking to help serve as indicative of my feelings toward any mystical/supernatural/religious angles to the argument.
I might also have said:
“I don’t romanticize it, though, imagining nailing 95 fetuses to the church door or whatever.”
OK, I was wrong to say that they do not “facilitate” abortions – but they are performed by affiliates, not PP. and the pdf states that they have prevented (or facilitated the prevention) of more unwanted pregnancies that have, thus, not resulted in abortions. That sounds like a good thing to me.
If the people who believed abortion was murder and that every fetus had a right to life also believed in the equality of their fellow men and offering each citizen a chance to succeed in life, then some of us might actually feel more sympathetic to their position.
But when women are forced to carry babies to term and raise them, only to have those same people spit in her face and refuse her any help, that whole ‘every fetus has a right to life’ thing rings a bit hollow.
What do you think a strawman is?
Do you see the difference? The OP’s argument was a strawman.
The argument YOU make in the remainder of your post is not a strawman; it’s a legitimate argument against a real proposition that is actually made by pro-life advocates.
You tend to be fairly articulate and nominally sensible, but in this case, you are completely FUITH. You looked at the OP and thought, oh, I can make this about abortion, because I know how to invect that and it will totally derail rational discussion, right into my wheelhouse. The OP does not mention abortion, anywhere, and only tangentially alludes to a vague implication of it.
So, you set up your straw man by declaring the OP a straw man, because you got nothing on the actual question. You have defeated yourself in your own pool of molten irony.
Yes, and yes. In my opinion.
Yes. So what? How does that affect the determination?
Sure. For much of human existence, humans had only the barest idea of what happened to create a new human being. The understanding of the existence of cells is 350 years old. So the lack of a huge tradition tying humanity to conception is not expected.
How is that relevant?
Prior to that there was no national caselaw that grounded abortion as a constitutional right.
There’s no question that much of the country agrees with you. I don’t, but I certainly respect the workings of the democratic process.
That’s not my motivation. I contend that there is a human life from the moment of conception and that consistency demands we afford that life protection. I understand you don’t agree, and have another model to apply, but that doesn’t transform mine.
It’s issues like this that give rise to the notion that the US is now a regressive nation.
The overwhelming rest of the western world now considers abortion a medical procedure and in the most part is funded by their individual UHC schemes. There is no political interference, and here, any oppositions to abortions are essentially confined to the ‘conscientious objectors’ who write Letters to the Editor of our newspapers, or the occasional rally outside our houses of parliament.
And no pollie wanting to remain a politician would dare seriously suggest revoking the act allowing women to have an abortion, at least here in Australia.
Sheesh America, you used to lead the planet in all things progressive, yet now you seem to be hunkering down, heading decidedly backwards in social and intellectual movement, and the rest of the world is leaving you behind…
What I said was:
I have bolded the initial clause to draw your attention to it.
Also, I have no idea what “invect,” means.
Yeah, but the way you have thence proceeded indicates that it was a silent “if”. Stop being disingenuous.