To put it more simply, abortion is a medical and not a moral issue here.
Sure, some individuals oppose abortion on moral grounds, but they have no political clout. They can choose NOT to have an abortion just as women can choose to have an abortion. The government is silent on the subject, as it should be.
I think the objections relating to scientific/religious views on fetal personhood are an attempt to understand how you justify your arbitrary contention “that there is a human life from the moment of conception”.
It makes much more sense to say that human personhood, like other human characteristics, develops over the course of gestation. Biological science doesn’t support any such concept of “instantaneous full personhood at fertilization”, and neither do traditional religious texts or pre-modern legal systems. If that lack of support is irrelevant, then on what exactly are you basing this “contention” of yours?
Your position is no more rational than, say, assigning some kind of “quasi-personhood” status to human sperm because of their human-life developmental potential, and consequently declaring that male masturbation should be outlawed because it avoidably destroys sperm, who are quasi-persons deserving of protection. Sure, that seems silly: but declaring that a just-fertilized ovum is a human person with the full rights of a human being also seems silly.
Now, there’s no law against having some silly opinions. And certainly I would never call it silly or wrong to have a personal belief that one’s own gestating embryo has some kind of “soul” or “personhood” or “spirit” from the very first moment of its existence. For someone who thinks that, it may be for them an important part of initiating the parent-child relationship. Heck, plenty of people believe that their babies, existing or possible future, had/have some kind of soul or spirit waiting to be incarnated even before there was a fertilized egg to assign their identity to. Fine, I’m not going to say they’re wrong about their personal beliefs about their own babies.
But if you’re going to declare that the nation’s laws as a whole ought to conform to your arbitrary belief in assigning instantaneous full personhood at conception, ISTM that you ought to have a more rational defense of that notion than the mere assertion that you “contend” it is so.
Planned Parenthood is NOT about abortion. When I was young and poor, my son was eligible for Medicaid, but I was not, so PP is where I went for gynecological exams, Pap smears and birth control. They also do STD and HIV screenings and mammograms, all on a sliding fee scale. For some people PP may be their only access to health care at all. If the government stops re-imbursing them for these services and those covered by Medicaid, they may still be able to help some people, but the number will be far fewer. This will almost certainly cause the abortion rate to go up, as well as the death rates from diseases that aren’t caught.
Does human life begin at conception (negative 9 months), viability (abt. negative 3 months), birth (age 0), or sentience (never :rolleyes:) ?
I agree with OP and think life obviously begins at ovulation. (Compare the sizes of ovum and sperm if this isn’t clear.) When one of these female objects — who exist to create male children for males — ovulates, she has a duty to get her ovum fertilized. Failure to so is Murder!
Perhaps we should consider prosecuting these females who are too uppity, cerebral or lesbianish to get their eggs fertilized! Far from condemning rape — which has been the natural order since Uguu the Orangutan smelled something good — we need to applaud rapists: they are fighting crime, by hindering the woman from her monthly murder.
You are free to believe what you want.
Your beliefs should not be imposed on me if that is all you have.
Say I believe blacks/hispanics/asians/pick your group suck at driving. Should that be enough to ban those groups from driving? What if it is not just me but a wide swath of the American public that believe it? Is that sufficient in your view to restrict their driving privileges?
Conservatives love history and how things should be as they have always been. I disagree with that but this is just to lend weight to what conservatives like…the good old days.
It isn’t except most resistance to abortion is couched in religion. Glad you agree religious belief should have no bearing on this whatsoever. I hope others take note and remind you of this till the end of days.
There was a six year gap between Roe v. Wade and the birth of the pro-life movement.
The FFs cared about the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing magically “right” about a majority of people deciding something. At one point a majority of people in the US though slavery was ok.
What you are espousing is a belief. You are welcome to it. Law should not be based on beliefs. I have shown your beliefs are without merit in science or history.
For what it’s worth, I thought the thread was partly about abortion but also about contraception and restrictions on women’s sexuality in general. Overall, the stupid arbitrary rules that men impose on women while claiming it’s for their own good.
:rolleyes:
Wow. Smug much? And the best kind of smugness, one that is based on being very very very very wrong.
All Australian states (with the exception of ACT) have laws which allow abortions which are much more restrictive than would be permssiblein the United States. Indeed in your most populated states, (NSW,), abortions are illegal and only permitted due to caselaw reading down and require a doctor’s opinion before they can be done.
Plenty of people hold the view that a fetus, before some point, isn’t a person, and thus has no rights (where exactly this point is placed will of course vary from person to person). This is something that reasonable people can disagree about, and I have no problem with such people.
But anyone who believes that a fetus is a person, and yet believes that abortion of that fetus is acceptable, is plainly and simply a reprehensible monster. At that point, it’s not about people having rights over their own bodies, because such a person is denying the person who is the fetus rights over the fetus’ own body. And the fetus had no say in the matter at all, in contrast to the pregnant woman who did make a set of choices that led to that point.
He thinks it’s family reunions.
I’ve gotten a lot of project management laughs from the statement “you haven’t gotten that done yet. I managed to create a human being in nine months!” Its an amazing complex process that happens quickly.
Hey, it has Biblical support. Spilling the seed of Onan and all that. And frankly, it should carry a death sentence:
And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
(The ladies are going to have to round up the men who survive their teenage years without being executed and put them into camps so we can go have sex to continue the species - there won’t be enough of them else.)
On the contrary, it was an “if” spoken (or read) in normal tones, giving as much effect to it as to any other word in the sentence.
IF this OP is about abortion, then the characterizations which it ascribes to pro-life groups are strawmen. If it’s not, then my comment does not apply.
I don’t believe a fetus is a person, but if I did, it wouldn’t change my view – the status of the fetus is immaterial to my position. Every person, IMO, gets to decide whether another person inside them gets to stay there, and can evict them at any time, including by force if they won’t leave willingly. This goes for rapists, tiny violinists, or fetuses alike. The alternative is that people don’t get to make decisions about whether other people get to stay in their bodies or not, and that to me is even more monstrous than killing a person who won’t or can’t leave from inside you.
I’ll note, though, that my position is just about getting them out – if we had the technology to support a fetus outside the womb, then ending a pregnancy doesn’t have to require the death of the fetus.
Rape never causes pregnancy, women who say they got pregnant by rape are lying, the baby shouldn’t suffer for the crimes of their father, and the father should get paternal rights. I’ve heard all of these ideas from anti-abortion picketers.
I’m a store cashier. I’ve learned that some people will always give you correct change because “women are too stupid to make change.” (direct quote)
I’m obviously not unsympathetic to this analysis, but I’d argue that “reprehensible monster,” is undeserved. I think it’s perfectly possible for someone to argue that even though the fetus is a person, that fetus has no right to draw sustenance from another’s body without consent. An awful lot of pro-choice people believe that the unborn child is a human being, but still support abortion, and are not (I argue) reprehensible monsters. They are mistaken in their moral calculus, but this is an opinion I have, not a proveable matter of objective truth.
I thought Bricker’s Law was “Any error or poor behavior on the part of a left-wing opponent will inevitably be implied or stated to be representative of all liberals”.
Data point indeed.
I’ve heard from some store cashiers that the most outlandish ideas from the most extreme representatives of a given school of thought may be fairly imputed to the entire movement. Some store cashiers understand the concept of “nutpicking,” and others do not.
Into which category do you fall?
ETA: You’re not alone. I’m guilty of the same tactic. See below.
Huh. I just suggested the same of Annie-Xmas.
But yes, I’ve done that myself. It’s obviously invalid. I’m trying to avoid it. It’s an insidiously tempting tactic.
We should hire some actors and get some cameras and shoot a short about how 14-year-old girls deserve to be raped … like sitting in a classroom, wearing clothes or just talking … no normal man can resist such seductions … then we need to show Planned Parenthood executives giving the rapist a cut of the profit from selling the fetal material on the blackmarket … then post the names and addresses of all the “immoral women” who’ve used PP’s services …
Once we’re done we can distribute the film and set up a GoFundMe site and rake in the money from stupid people … it’s the American way …
“Why are you two guys hanging out behind an abortion clinic?”
“Ah, dude, it’s a great place to meet loose women.”
Interested in investing in such a profitable venture, send $50 to Alternate Universe Productions, 350 N Orleans St, Chicago, IL … we promise 40% return on your investment !!!
I judge people as individuals. I’ve had obvious members of the groups of which I speak hand me a large bill and not even count their change. I also had a group of these people make five separate transactions and insist on giving me correct change. The head cashier and the customers behind them went nuts because they were taking so long, but I couldn’t say a word as they stood there counting out pennies.
One member of one of these groups insisted, after completing the 37 item transaction, that I had rung it up wrong. He stood there for twenty minutes comparing each of the 37 items with the receipt. Even when he didn’t find any mistake, he insisted there was one. We had to call the (male) manager, who threatened to call the police if he didn’t leave.