Is abortion ok

[The D]

If the "victim" were one of my family (a potential wife or child... I'm not married ) I'd definitely want the death penalty imposed.



Very True. But I might also claim the right to "take my frustrations out" on the people that "forced" my fictional wife/daughter to carry the baby to term and accept those risks of pregnancy. Be they legislators that passed laws or community leaders or whatever. I know... a little far fetched, but that's what I'd feel. If there were some legislator or judge or whatever that ordered my family member to carry that baby because it had a "right to life," and it resulted in the death of my family member from medical complications, I'd sue the crap out of that legislator, etc. that imposed that law or order. They're just as responsible as the perp, AFAIC. Perhaps, even more so, as the perp is not requiring my family member to carry the baby, even though they're the biological father.

I totally get feeling this way. I have a 20yo stepdaughter and it would be a very difficult time if we had to go through this. I’m pretty sure my wife would feel the same way though. She’s pretty pro-life, I’m just not how sire how she’d feel if it was her daughter.

From now on I’m just going to link to this bit. I love Bill Burr, he’s hilarious

 

[theLBC]

i think in at least 30 states, if you kill a pregnant woman and the unborn baby it is a double-homicide.

 

[quietmike]

An excellent summation on the issue.

 

[fdkay]

OK, every rape that's "reported" to and investigated by LE??? And, for which a perp is arrested/charged?

Typically, health care providers are required by law to notify LE when someone makes an outcry of rape, assault or domestic violence.

 

[Fx51LP308]

Typically, health care providers are required by law to notify LE when someone makes an outcry of rape, assault or domestic violence.

But do they always result in an arrest or charges?

 

[doubloon]

But do they always result in an arrest or charges?

No.

 

[doubloon]

A couple of things.
No, I don't think abortion is a good thing. You are killing another human being.
However, it's not my decision, why would I impose my beliefs on someone else?
Do what Kansas and Ohio did and what the Dobbs decision said.
Let the VOTERS of each state decide.
You don't believe in abortion? Don't get one.
Not only that, the VAST majority of those that are aborting their offspring are solid democrat voters and their offspring would likely be generational suck on society that would also vote democrat.

That's really close to my take. I'm not a fan of it but up to a certain point it's not murder.

 

[fdkay]

But do they always result in an arrest or charges?

No, but are you OK with accusing an innocent person of rape?

 

[Fx51LP308]

No, but are you OK with accusing an innocent person of rape?

Not at all. "There but for the grace of God, could go I (at some point)."

My point here was to respond to your premise above....

The problem with the rape exception is that then every unwanted pregnancy is due to rape.

If, therefore, "every unwanted pregnancy could be due to rape," one way to discern the true claims of rape from the false claims (i.e., simply an unwanted pregnancy), would be to have LE investigate them (especially since they have to be reported anyway by health care workers... I know. I was one). And, if that LE investigation (and any obtained evidence) results in an arrest and/or charges for a perp, then it would seem to have been a true claim.

 

[Bullfrog08]

Has anybody in here put an end to abortion yet? Again, this thread is waste of time to post in or to even argue in. People are going to keep killing babies, and not a single person in here is going to do a damn thing. Waste of time to even post in this thread. Bunch of bitching......and that is where it will end, no matter how many pages it continues too. Keep posting and arguing, that's really all that is going on.......lots of blah, blah, blah, blah......

Circling the drain, circling the drain.......

 

[Bullfrog08]

Not sure what your question has to do with the thread topic?

But to answer I’d say by homeschooling, my wife and I are setting our children up to not be part of the problem.

What are you fixing?

Notta, that's the point! All we do is bitch! Everyone should be homeschooling at this point.....good for you. Although, the cell phone and damaged peers, will undo a lot of the morals you instill within them. Hopefully not, but its an uphill battle against society!

 

[fdkay]

Not at all. "There but for the grace of God, could go I (at some point)."

My point here was to respond to your premise above....



If, therefore, "every unwanted pregnancy could be due to rape," one way to discern the true claims of rape from the false claims (i.e., simply an unwanted pregnancy), would be to have LE investigate them (especially since they have to be reported anyway by health care workers... I know. I was one). And, if that LE investigation (and any obtained evidence) results in an arrest and/or charges for a perp, then it would seem to have been a true claim.

You are obfuscating.
The issue isn't the true claims, it is the false ones.

1. These investigations take time.
2. They may be making very serious, false felony allegations against someone (in the event they name a suspect)
3. There is typically no punishment for the false claims unless the injured party seeks civil restitution

An investigator frequently spends more time proving something didn't happen as opposed to investigating something that did. There are, of course, exceptions.
Don't take this to mean you should never believe the accusations, you have to believe them to a certain extent (sometimes the stories are obvious bullshit), so every report is investigated. But again, making a rape accusation for what was a consensual encounter is a vile and evil thing to do.

FWIW, I believe there SHOULD be a rape/incest exception, but there should also be very stiff penalties, possibly up to and including murder if you make a false allegation in order to get an abortion.

Unintended consequences are frequently the worst kind.

 

[Fx51LP308]

You are obfuscating.
The issue isn't the true claims, it is the false ones.

Yes. But how do you determine what's true vs false, if you don't investigate?

1. These investigations take time.
2. They may be making very serious, false felony allegations against someone (in the event they name a suspect)

Which is why they shouldn't name a suspect/POI unless/until they (DA's office) can come very close to indicting them. When I said "investigate," I meant only to gather evidence and identify any potential suspects/POIs without arresting/charging them. Until that point, their identity remains anonymous. If the complainant should "Doxx" the suspect/POI publicly prior to being formally charged (and it's determined there isn't any supporting evidence for that suspect/POI), then I absolutely agree with your "very stiff penalties" for filing a false claim (as I would for other kinds of false clames (eg. false ERPOs)). But I think laws would have to be updated for that, presently. Like you say, there aren't sufficient laws for dealing with false claims.

Don't take this to mean you should never believe the accusations, you have to believe them to a certain extent (sometimes the stories are obvious bullshit), so every report is investigated. But again, making a rape accusation for what was a consensual encounter is a vile and evil thing to do.

Agreed, totally. I'm just not sure how one can protect themself against such an accusation if it is/was "consensual." I think that's part and parcel of developing "trust" for your partner. If you can't trust your partner, you shouldn't be "engaging" with them. They probably shouldn't be your partner for very long, it that's the case.

FWIW, I believe there SHOULD be a rape/incest exception, but there should also be very stiff penalties, possibly up to and including murder if you make a false allegation in order to get an abortion.

Unintended consequences are frequently the worst kind.

Agreed, totally!

 

[fdkay]

Yes. But how do you determine what's true vs false, if you don't investigate?



Which is why they shouldn't name a suspect/POI unless/until they (DA's office) can come very close to indicting them. When I said "investigate," I meant only to gather evidence and identify any potential suspects/POIs without arresting/charging them. Until that point, their identity remains anonymous. If the complainant should "Doxx" the suspect/POI publicly prior to being formally charged (and it's determined there isn't any supporting evidence for that suspect/POI), then I absolutely agree with your "very stiff penalties" for filing a false claim (as I would for other kinds of false clames (eg. false ERPOs)). But I think laws would have to be updated for that, presently. Like you say, there aren't sufficient laws for dealing with false claims.



Agreed, totally. I'm just not sure how one can protect themself against such an accusation if it is/was "consensual." I think that's part and parcel of developing "trust" for your partner. If you can't trust your partner, you shouldn't be "engaging" with them. They probably shouldn't be your partner for very long, it that's the case.



Agreed, totally!

How many law enforcement investigations have you done?
Do you know how many man hours are devoted to investigating something like this?

You seem to be glomming onto one of the points that I brought up, but are missing the big picture.
When you make an exception to a rule, then the exception becomes the rule.
It WILL be misused.

 

[Fx51LP308]

How many law enforcement investigations have you done?
Do you know how many man hours are devoted to investigating something like this?

Yes, I do. Not necessarily LE specific investigations but others where the result might involve non legal sanctions against an accused.

You seem to be glomming onto one of the points that I brought up,

Well, you *did* bring it up. You felt it worthy of bringing up. And all I tried to do was respond to it by offering a solution to the problem. I was not concerned with how much effort time/expense it would take. Getting to "the truth" is worth all the time and expense it takes, especially when one's life, liberty and property are at stake (eg. Prison, Capital Punishment, etc.). If it's determined to be a false claim, then the complantant should pay the price for the time/effort spent.

When you make an exception to a rule, then the exception becomes the rule.
It WILL be misused.

But how much/often? The more "advantage" taken from the exception, the closer it becomes to the "rule." Perhaps, the thing to do is "disincentivize" the filing of false claims for whatever reason (abortion or not), by imposing extremely stiff penalties for it. And I think the time/effort spent on at least a cursory investigation, just to see if it's worth pursuing further, is time well spent, especially if it keeps a potential suspect out of jail and/or their integrity in tact.

 

[doubloon]

Has anybody in here put an end to abortion yet? Again, this thread is waste of time to post in or to even argue in. People are going to keep killing babies, and not a single person in here is going to do a damn thing. Waste of time to even post in this thread. Bunch of bitching......and that is where it will end, no matter how many pages it continues too. Keep posting and arguing, that's really all that is going on.......lots of blah, blah, blah, blah......

Circling the drain, circling the drain.......

Fundamentally the same issue with all politics and legislation ... welfare, the drug war, climate delusion, prohibition ...

At some point it seems it would be best for the country as a whole if a majority of voters agreed on a moderate set of laws/legislation to govern the land (Romans 13:1-7) and hold themselves and the sheep in their herd to whatever higher, more pious or righteous standards 'moral' standards they choose (Acts 5:29).

 

[W54/XM-388]

Fundamentally the same issue with all politics and legislation ... welfare, the drug war, climate delusion, prohibition ...

At some point it seems it would be best for the country as a whole if a majority of voters agreed on a moderate set of laws/legislation to govern the land (Romans 13:1-7) and hold themselves and the sheep in their herd to whatever higher, more pious or righteous standards 'moral' standards they choose (Acts 5:29).

It's NEVER going to work out that way, and here is why.

Almost nobody actually cares about true actual freedom for everyone to do as they wish so long as they cannot be proven to be doing direct physical harm to someone else.

Almost Everyone wants to have all the freedom in the world to do what they want as much as they want and tough everybody respect my freedom.
But then those same people want to tell others that NO you can't do what you wan't because I don't like it and don't think it's right or it annoys me or I just want to be pissy to you and by golly I'm going to get some men with guns to make you do what I want on threat of murder.

Every side is the exact same, right, left, conservative, left wing, fruit bat, righteous, libertarian, they ALL care more about oppressing others than their own freedom.

If you think you are the exception ask yourself this:

In a true world of true personal freedom, you could walk around strapped with all the guns you want, school, shopping centers, restaurants, the local courthouse etc. But someone else would for example have the same right to do all the same stuff without wearing any clothes if they didn't feel that the human body needs to be hidden or covered up as some "wrong thing". -- Cue howling to begin about how not being ashamed of your natural body is somehow evil.. Now you see my point.

You might like raising cows and chickens for food, but what if the next guy over likes raising puppies and kittens for food?

Then you go to school, one party might think kids should be taught all the facts of biology and human bodies and human reproductive systems promptly, somebody else thinks you should hide all that information and make up crazy stories about things. So well there goes having a public school.
Some people like to teach Children the truth about Christmas and various Christmas traditions, others get all raging and angry and weeping on TV and blathering lies when somebody happens to tell their precious brats the truth about the whole "santa claus" business. So well I guess now don't let your kids talk to their kids?

And the list goes on and on.

Even in "bible times" well just read all the slaughter and murder and genocide done back and forth even amongst the "good folks" when there were differences of opinions.

Always been that way.
Always will be that way until the day Humans are no longer in charge.

 

[psharon78]

I used to be completely against abortion. My ideas have somewhat changed.

I want more abortion clinics built around the blue cities and college campuses. I want expanded abortion access. In short, I want leftists to continue to abort their children while the we continue to generate a much more conservative generation. This will be a self correcting issue.

 

[fdkay]

Well, you *did* bring it up. You felt it worthy of bringing up. And all I tried to do was respond to it by offering a solution to the problem. I was not concerned with how much effort time/expense it would take. Getting to "the truth" is worth all the time and expense it takes, especially when one's life, liberty and property are at stake (eg. Prison, Capital Punishment, etc.). If it's determined to be a false claim, then the complantant should pay the price for the time/effort spent.

I did, it is worth discussing, I think we got into speaking past each other just a bit, but it appears we are actually pretty much on the same page.
It is a problem for sure. IMHO there should be some exceptions, but I certainly don't think there should be such a thing as abortion on demand.
FWIW, I had a young girl report a rape shortly after Texas enacted the 15 week ban.
It was consensual, unprotected sex.
I've had others, they are time consuming, and frequently require more effort to prove it didn't happen, thus eating up time and resources.

 

[Fx51LP308]

I did, it is worth discussing, I think we got into speaking past each other just a bit, but it appears we are actually pretty much on the same page.
It is a problem for sure. IMHO there should be some exceptions, but I certainly don't think there should be such a thing as abortion on demand.

Neither do I.

FWIW, I had a young girl report a rape shortly after Texas enacted the 15 week ban.
It was consensual, unprotected sex.

Just to be clear, you received that report as an "investigator," correct?

I've had others, they are time consuming, and frequently require more effort to prove it didn't happen, thus eating up time and resources.

I certainly understand that frustration. And that's why I would favor "disincentivizing" the filing of those false claims by imposing heavy penalties for them. It won't stop them all but, perhaps, a significant number of them.. enough to make a difference for investigators. Longer term, I think what I mentioned earlier would also help... education. That is, educate kids as to what "trust" is all about. Teach kids how to assess a person's trustworthiness. And if they can't trust the person (or until they can), they shouldn't "engage."

 

[Fig]

The question is not "is abortion ok". That question is meaningless unless you answer the foundational questions. If he/she (a zygote is differentiated and contains a complete DNA) is not a human being, it's like asking, "Is it ok to remove an inflamed appendix?" If he/she is a human being it is no different than asking, "Is it ok to murder your children if you no longer want them?" Science has settled that question. A zygote is unequivocally a human being (at our most nascent stage). Even the idea of personhood starting at a heart-beat or brain waves is a completely arbitrary invention, not to mention being dependent on the mother, still attached, inside the mother, etc.

I would love to hear arguments about placing personhood at any of these arbitrary points of development, but I would require you to consider all the ramifications of such thinking beyond simply murdering an unborn baby. Such callous moral equivalency is why our society is in a death spiral.
Science and our knowledge has given us the bright line. Clearly that nearly (nothing in science is certain) unassailable knowledge does not inform many people's moral calculation.

Now, when are human beings without value, or of negative value. Almost all of us would say that depends on that person's action. However, an unborn human being hasn't done anything to warrant such a devaluation of worth. In fact, they are the only innocent beings among us. So that argument doesn't work, or rather it takes to the darkest corners of humanity and our history.

If you have a logical argument I'd love to hear it, because I've never heard one that is even remotely logical. What seems to be the main problem is a person's foundational philosophy (which gets into religion, though it doesn't have to) vis a vis the belief that human life has intrinsic value, and is not a commodity or a quantifiable figure on paper. Again, reducing our humanity down to a value is the primary means that the worst crimes and injustices in human history have been so casually committed, just like the murder of 63,000,000 babies since 1973 (just in the USA). Easily making this the largest worldwide genocide in human history.

When you compare the "arguments" of those who are supporters of this genocide it is very easy to see how "good" people can become fanatics who casually murder their fellow human beings with indifference. The only logical and moral position is to place human life where we can actually say that a person is a human being, and that all human beings demand personhood. Trying to shoehorn this deeply philosophical discussion into "healthcare" denies that there is another human being involved. We prosecute parents who murder their infants, toddler, or adult children. If the "arguments" I've heard from the left are valid then this is a miscarriage of justice. Value of human life is not intrinsic, but arbitrary based on whatever morality of the moment you choose. In fact, this brings into question the very idea of virtue and morality in the first place. It may be the most primary expression of it.

Just another way that post-modernist, solipsism is moving us backwards and being called "progressive".

 

[fdkay]

Just to be clear, you received that report as an "investigator," correct?

Yes, and I had to devote a significant amount of time to the investigation.

 

[doubloon]

It's NEVER going to work out that way, and here is why.

Almost nobody actually cares about true actual freedom for everyone to do as they wish so long as they cannot be proven to be doing direct physical harm to someone else.

Firstly, totally agree because humans.

If you think you are the exception ask yourself this:

That's the rub, figuring out where one person's rights end and another's begin. People love telling other people how to live, in some ways it's a form of validation for a chosen lifestyle. On the microcosmic scale it's the eternal battle between a parent and a child over lifestyle and career choices. The sports/hunt-aholic who struggles with a son who has no interest. It's the same, just (usually) less harmful or catastrophic. Often the child goes on to lead a full and rewarding life in spite of parent criticism.

Me, personally? I struggle sometimes with other peoples freedoms but I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard.

Value of human life is not intrinsic, but arbitrary based on whatever morality of the moment you choose. In fact, this brings into question the very idea of virtue and morality in the first place. It may be the most primary expression of it.

Si. Morality is subjective and fluid.

Dog for breakfast? If that's what you want to eat and it's legal where you live then get after it.

The question of wether or not a human life is worth more than the life of a cow is relatively easy to answer next to a fence that has been cut in the middle of the night if judged by law. Perhaps not so easy if judged by scripture although Exodus puts a price on a lot of things.

Touching on other topics you raise. I struggle a little with what a public school should be allowed to teach. On the one hand, sex and religion from a moral perspective are things that should be forged at home. On the other hand, both are real and valuable information young adults can use when navigating the world because learning about either for the first time on the "street" is not, I believe, the best option. The friction here is too many people do not address any of these topics in their home and too many "teachers" cross the line between instruction and indoctrination.

Excellent post, excellent points, although I do struggle classifying 63M abortions of no particular race or creed as "genocide" but the gravity of your point is valid.

 

[Fig]

Well, I'm specifically talking about Americans, and only alluding to the rest of the world, so the use of the word "genocide" is the correct etymology of murder on a massive scale of a specific people.

Don't forget that there was nothing illegal about the Nazi, Holodomor, Arminian, or many other genocides. In fact, I would argue that most genocides have to be determined to be lawful in the proper court due to their sheer scale and the number of people directly involved who express the same sentiments as you; namely that if something is legal and will not be immediately punished by the current government it is in effect "moral" and justified. Jurisprudence is simply not a legitimate substitute for actual virtue and morality. Its neutral nature can be bent towards vice and immorality with equal ease. Respect for the law is directly proportional to its acceptance as being moral and just. It is not accidental that communism, socialism, and progressivism places religion at the center of its most virile opprobrium, or that man creating his own morality and differentiation between virtue and vice has never worked out in all of human history.

Your scenarios are not just farfetched, but misguided. Cattle rustling is no longer a capital offense. When it was a capital offense it was because ranching was a (the) major national industry, rustling was pervasive, and it destroyed a rancher's livelihood. It was never about the actual cows, but rather the theft itself, the value what was stolen, and its impact on the victims. This is beyond that big ranchers who had the most cattle were the most politically powerful, wealthy, or citizens who were involved in making the laws. QED. There are many examples of people deciding property crimes constitute a capital offense (I can think of a dozen off the top of my head), and while they may seem unenlightened to us, they were mostly a product of that particular time, zeitgeist, and the power of the victims. I don't advocate making law that way either.

 

[doubloon]

Well, I'm specifically talking about Americans, and only alluding to the rest of the world, so the use of the word "genocide" is the correct etymology of murder on a massive scale of a specific people.

Si, I conceded it as a point but perhaps not "technically" correct by definition. I tend to think most people having abortions are doing it from a selfish perspective and do not have the goal in mind to eliminate all "babies" or end all pregnancies. I'm not aware of any group that is completely anti-birth or anti-pregnancy but I'm sure there has to be at least one.

But, like I said before, I appreciate the gravity of your argument. (although "gravity" might not be specifically the technically correct word)

or that man creating his own morality and differentiation between virtue and vice has never worked out

Man has always created his own morality, always will. The question is which moralities are justifiably enforced on people against their will and which should be judged and punished by man rather than "god" for violating moral and which morals.

I tend to lean toward a government that operates on a set of morals that fall short of what any one particular religion may set for its followers. I'm OK with people holding themselves to a higher standard than the "law" but not OK with people holding others to a higher standard than law.

Your scenarios are not just farfetched, but misguided. Cattle rustling is no longer a capital offense.

My scenarios are real and concrete. I didn't say "capital offense". Deadly force for theft under specific circumstances is "legal" even if not "moral".

 

[Fig]

Lol! You're so heavily influenced by a specific religion you don't even know it. The idea that you can/must choose what to believe for yourself is almost uniquely Christian. In almost every other religion conversion by the sword is not only permissible it is the preferred method. I can't think of another religion that specifically requires direct agency and faith beyond received knowledge. You literally cannot understand our Declaration of Independance and our Constitution unless you are familiar with the large Christian themes that underpin it.

So, while it was specifically written as a secular document to apply to peoples of all faiths (or none), the biggest ideas in it about self-determination and personal liberty are so uniquely Christian it borders on the absurd that an educated person would not acknowledge its unique pedigree. I could start quoting Bible verses at you for proof, but the Founders themselves were perfectly clear about it. This isn't secret knowledge, it's just not in vogue to acknowledge it because of how far away from actual morality and justice our government has gone.

This divorce from reality and history has become so extreme that progressives had to make up a word for it: "Evangelical Christians", as opposed to just "Christian". 'Cuz see, there are actual followers of Christ who are so incredibly extreme that they actually have real belief and real faith, as opposed to someone who says, "I'm a Christian", but has none. They needed a way to identify the people who don't believe that government is the highest power, because those people are damn dangerous!

 

[doubloon]

Lol! You're so heavily influenced by a specific religion you don't even know it.

Christianity is not without it's own history of conversion by sword.

Given that the majority, if not all, of those who contributed to the framing of the declaration and constitution had christian roots it's impossible for it not to have christian undertones but that does not mean it is exclusively for christians.

The principles embodied in these documents are drawn as much from the old testament (Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs, ...) as the new. Christians don't "own" the bible, especially not the old testament. If anything the idea that people should kow-tow to government is more "christian" than the rest ... Romans 13:1 ... submission to governmental authoritah ... new testament and almost exclusively a "christian" resource.

While the majority of those involved in the process may have had roots in christianity most of their inspiration was derived from old testament which many "christians" today either ignore or cherry pick as iconvenient.

 

[mi650]

I find abortion distasteful personally, and think RvW was a mistake. That genie has been stuffed as far back into the bottle as he's gonna be. The libertarian in me says that it's not my business, though. I'm not the most religious, but if God objects to it, those who have an abortion will get to deal with Him when their time comes.

I believe abortion should be allowed in cases of the mothers health risks, of course, also rape and incest. In cases of rape, the victim should be offered the morning after pill in the ER, when she reports and is being treated for said rape. If she waits until there are no signs or evidence of said rape, she's SOL. Yes, there are many people who would love to adopt the baby, but carrying it for 9 months is significantly traumatic to the mother, during and after. Some cases of incest are consensual, but due to the risk of birth defects, abortions should be allowed and maybe encouraged.

Now on the other hand, it seems the majority of abortions are performed on communists. And although I still find it distasteful, this helps society as a whole. And while they shouldn't necessarily be encouraged for welfare rats, they most definitely shouldn't be given any more of my/our stolen money for spitting out more generational rats.

 

[doubloon]

Now on the other hand, it seems the majority of abortions are performed on communists

There are "sources" that claim as many as 75% of the women having abortions identify as "christian". Not sure how that stacks up to the communist statistic but as statistics go they're all worth about the same.

Other than that I think we're mostly on the same page on some of the basics where "legal" abortions are concerned. I *like* the idea of more restrictive laws on abortions but it's not necessarily the most "practical" approach.

 

[mkollman74]

A couple of things.
No, I don't think abortion is a good thing. You are killing another human being.
However, it's not my decision, why would I impose my beliefs on someone else?
Do what Kansas and Ohio did and what the Dobbs decision said.
Let the VOTERS of each state decide.
You don't believe in abortion? Don't get one.
Not only that, the VAST majority of those that are aborting their offspring are solid democrat voters and their offspring would likely be generational suck on society that would also vote democrat.

I do hope you meant to say something just a bit different here. Perhaps I am missing something. First you say, that abortion is killing another human being, and then you question why you would impose the belief that it is wrong to kill another human on someone else...? If I applied that line of thinking to its logical conclusion well, keep your head down, its open season... If you don't like the self-protective, "it should be wrong to kill me" way of thinking, then let's try this: Every single law on the books is imposing beliefs on someone else RE: what is allowed and not allowed.

 

[OkieMike]

The question is not "is abortion ok". That question is meaningless unless you answer the foundational questions. If he/she (a zygote is differentiated and contains a complete DNA) is not a human being, it's like asking, "Is it ok to remove an inflamed appendix?" If he/she is a human being it is no different than asking, "Is it ok to murder your children if you no longer want them?" Science has settled that question. A zygote is unequivocally a human being (at our most nascent stage). Even the idea of personhood starting at a heart-beat or brain waves is a completely arbitrary invention, not to mention being dependent on the mother, still attached, inside the mother, etc.

I would love to hear arguments about placing personhood at any of these arbitrary points of development, but I would require you to consider all the ramifications of such thinking beyond simply murdering an unborn baby. Such callous moral equivalency is why our society is in a death spiral.
Science and our knowledge has given us the bright line. Clearly that nearly (nothing in science is certain) unassailable knowledge does not inform many people's moral calculation.

Now, when are human beings without value, or of negative value. Almost all of us would say that depends on that person's action. However, an unborn human being hasn't done anything to warrant such a devaluation of worth. In fact, they are the only innocent beings among us. So that argument doesn't work, or rather it takes to the darkest corners of humanity and our history.

If you have a logical argument I'd love to hear it, because I've never heard one that is even remotely logical. What seems to be the main problem is a person's foundational philosophy (which gets into religion, though it doesn't have to) vis a vis the belief that human life has intrinsic value, and is not a commodity or a quantifiable figure on paper. Again, reducing our humanity down to a value is the primary means that the worst crimes and injustices in human history have been so casually committed, just like the murder of 63,000,000 babies since 1973 (just in the USA). Easily making this the largest worldwide genocide in human history.

When you compare the "arguments" of those who are supporters of this genocide it is very easy to see how "good" people can become fanatics who casually murder their fellow human beings with indifference. The only logical and moral position is to place human life where we can actually say that a person is a human being, and that all human beings demand personhood. Trying to shoehorn this deeply philosophical discussion into "healthcare" denies that there is another human being involved. We prosecute parents who murder their infants, toddler, or adult children. If the "arguments" I've heard from the left are valid then this is a miscarriage of justice. Value of human life is not intrinsic, but arbitrary based on whatever morality of the moment you choose. In fact, this brings into question the very idea of virtue and morality in the first place. It may be the most primary expression of it.

Just another way that post-modernist, solipsism is moving us backwards and being called "progressive".

The fact that science has not been able to definitively tell us when it becomes a human being is (in my opinion) the crux of the argument.

So my stance has been if you don't know, then the default position should be... "We can't say for sure so we have to assume that it begins at conception."

It may just be a clump of cells... But so is the end of a finger. And if I take a pair of side cutters and lop the tip of someone's pinky off I am accountable for it.

And then there are proponents of late term abortion who still feel it justified when it is plainly evident that it's a human being.

Mike

 

[fpgt72]

I have largely stayed out of this, but I have a feeling most will agree what I am about to say.

If it is illegal a great many young girls will die with a coat hanger in their hands, you know what I mean by that all the way around, "fake" Dr's to anything else you can think of.

Families with "means" will be popping little Jenny on a private jet to somewhere where it is legal.

"unwanted" children (chose that word for a reason) are something that has happened for all time. "The Pill" has set everything we thought about sex on its ear. Jordan does a real good talk on that one.

It is a very deep pool looking into this stuff all the way around.

 

[mkollman74]

The fact that science has not been able to definitively tell us when it becomes a human being is (in my opinion) the crux of the argument.

So my stance has been if you don't know, then the default position should be... "We can't say for sure so we have to assume that it begins at conception."

It may just be a clump of cells... But so is the end of a finger. And if I take a pair of side cutters and lop the tip of someone's pinky off I am accountable for it.

And then there are proponents of late term abortion who still feel it justified when it is plainly evident that it's a human being.

Mike

From the moment the egg is fertilized a completely unique never seen before, never to be duplicated DNA sequence is created. Even indentical twins are not genetically indistinguishable. Its always a unique being that is not the mother or part of the mother's body. It is new life as far as I can tell.

 

[BigBabyMoses06]

A-OK in my book.

Advocating for MORE government regulation is dumb on every front. Idiots. They want government shackles and "leaders" to tell them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, and want to instill religious ideology onto others around them. They'll tell you they don't, and that they are for "freedom", but they're full of shit. They then have the gall to turn around dumbfounded and upset that the gov't regulates firearms and shit.

You don't have to associate with women who get abortions. No one is asking you to. But you SHOULD be defending individual liberty, and if you're not, you're just as much of an asshole as the people you accuse of being evil for getting an abortion.

To me, they sound very similar to Hamas and any other religious terror organization that enforces their religious law on their subjects.

 

[mkollman74]

A-OK in my book.

Advocating for MORE government regulation is dumb on every front. Idiots. They want government shackles and "leaders" to tell them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, and want to instill religious ideology onto others around them. They'll tell you they don't, and that they are for "freedom", but they're full of shit. They then have the gall to turn around dumbfounded and upset that the gov't regulates firearms and shit.

You don't have to associate with women who get abortions. No one is asking you to. But you SHOULD be defending individual liberty, and if you're not, you're just as much of an asshole as the people you accuse of being evil for getting an abortion.

To me, they sound very similar to Hamas and any other religious terror organization that enforces their religious law on their subjects.

You're off base. There is always some level of regulation, and this argument isn't about more regulation, it is about applying existing regulation, i.e. - the taking of innocent life. If you believe the fetus is not life, then there is your answer, although I think the science would disagree with you. You speak of freedom, and those who are pro-life believe they are advocating for the freedom of unborn humans. This is the defense of individual liberty you advocate for. Liberty is grounded in principle, or else it is meaningless and nobody has any liberty.

 

[AmmoFort]

A-OK in my book.

Advocating for MORE government regulation is dumb on every front. Idiots. They want government shackles and "leaders" to tell them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, and want to instill religious ideology onto others around them. They'll tell you they don't, and that they are for "freedom", but they're full of shit. They then have the gall to turn around dumbfounded and upset that the gov't regulates firearms and shit.

You don't have to associate with women who get abortions. No one is asking you to. But you SHOULD be defending individual liberty, and if you're not, you're just as much of an asshole as the people you accuse of being evil for getting an abortion.

To me, they sound very similar to Hamas and any other religious terror organization that enforces their religious law on their subjects.

Are you also fine with late term abortion? You a libertarian atheist? If you don't see abortion as murder then you can't see that the life of a human is being taken and that the murdered baby will never get a chance to exercise their personal liberty (that you so cherish).

I don't think this is a case of idiots wanting more government regulation. Just people who want to see murder called out as murder. It's just the murder of an innocent baby...just murder.

 

[doubloon]

If you believe the fetus is not life

So zygotes are fair game?

 

[mkollman74]

So zygotes are fair game?

Good point. As far as I can tell, zygotes are human life.

 

[BigBabyMoses06]

It's a liberty issue. Government has no right to tell me or any other man or woman what they can or cannot do with their body. Hard stop. Feelings are irrelevant imo.

Fetus is not a child, or a baby, or whatever else you want to call it at any stage, and regardless of whatever any portion of the government has decided to label it as. The argument of life is irrelevant. While it's still in the womb, it belongs to the mother, and she get's to choose to do whatever she wants. Hard stop. Dead, "alive", whatever.

Enforcing reproductive guidelines on individuals is along the lines of strict sharia law and shit. They align quite well actually.

 

[doubloon]

Good point. As far as I can tell, zygotes are human life.

If you really want to get down to it a live sperm and a live egg are required for fertilization to work so "life" begins before conception.

But the real question is when is it a person.

 

[mkollman74]

If you really want to get down to it a live sperm and a live egg are required for fertilization to work so "life" begins before conception.

But the real question is when is it a person.

So, what's the answer? When is it a person?

 

[doubloon]

So, what's the answer? When is it a person?

Depends on who you ask of course.

Fetal rights "extremists" or "conservatives" or whatever term you want to use to label those who believe in the strongest rights possible for a "life" say those rights begin at conception.

By many international standards it's not a person before birth which makes complete, total and absolute sense to me from a legal standpoint because a fetus can't own, inherit or take possession of anything. Sure, in the US, trusts and legal constructs can be set up for the thing to take possession of something/property/whatever but it's all held in escrow/stasis/whatever until after a successful birth. I think the legal term might be "a being" or "as being" or "in being" or something like that but still only for the purpose of probating wills and such and nothing to do with abortion.

By numerous religious standards it's not a person until after "ensoulment" which happens somewhere between 2-20 weeks depending on which priest/rabbi/imam you ask in which country/state.

I think Canada says (or used to say) it's a person once it popped out or was separated from the mother but I *think* they had this thing (weird to me) that dead or alive it was a person. In many "lesser developed" countries it's a life at conception but if something "happens" nobody gets the death penalty so maybe still not a "person".

For many I think the "quickening" is still the standard, once the fetus starts making movements in the womb.

Hell, nobody could even define "conception" until less than 200 years ago. Sure, everybody knew something happened in the womb after sex but they had no idea exactly when or how. The understanding of conception is a recent event in history no matter what anybody thinks their bible says.

For me personally, I consider it a potential person once it develops past the point where it can breathe on its own outside the womb. Before that point it's property without any rights. After that point it would have limited rights but could still be evicted under extreme circumstances. Once it draws a breath outside the womb it's a full on person with all the benefits and burdens. ETA: At no point in pregnancy am I in favor of or do I "support" abortion. Within the family unit I would strongly advocate and support carrying the pregnancy to it's "natural" conclusion but I would not disown or condemn anyone choosing a legal abortion.

 

[FWoo45]

I'd rather be a single father, which is far from an easy undertaking, than have my potential kid aborted. Women need to take some responsibility for their actions (in consensual fuckin). Men should have rights to their kids too. However, I support the aborting of commies at any age. The vast majority of abortions are preformed by commies on commies that would raise more commies. I see no issues with that.

 

[Fx51LP308]

Depends on who you ask of course.

For me personally, I consider it a potential person once it develops past the point where it can breathe on its own outside the womb.

Precisely. That was always my threshold as well. Once the fetus becomes viable, "ex utero." But the question really isn't "At what point does that 'life' become a person," but more, "At what point does that life (in whatever stage) merit the 'right to life' legal protections afforded a person?" And a fetus might merit those protections well before it becomes viable, ex utero. I'm not sure a zygote/embryo would. Lots of things can happen to that zygote/embryo which might make those legal protections difficult on their own. The biggest example, being an"ectopic pregnancy" (where the embryo attaches itself to somewhere *other* than a uteral wall, like a Fallopian tube). That could result in a life threatening condition for the mother if not terminated quickly. Or, perhaps, the embryo doesn't attach to anything at all, and is expelled, naturally. It could happen. I would not want a potential mom to feel "obligated" to do whatever they could to preserve the embryo inside them, especially if it's risky for them. Once that embryo becomes a fetus, and the Mom realizes she is pregnant, then I think the protections should begin.

 

[Cat pitch]

No matter what the law/gov says abortion is unholy and it is murder. it is as simple as that.

 

[BigBabyMoses06]

No matter what the law/gov says abortion is unholy and it is murder. it is as simple as that.

No matter what the law/gov says, and no matter what you or anyone else says, dictating what people can and cannot do with their own body is a complete infringement on individual liberties.

 

[Cat pitch]

No matter what the law/gov says, and no matter what you or anyone else says, dictating what people can and cannot do with their own body is a complete infringement on individual liberties.

There's always consequences for our action...You you like banging here and there then get ready to feed a baby.

 

[BigBabyMoses06]

There's always consequences for our action...You you like banging here and there then get ready to feed a baby.

That's not the issue, though. Liberty comes first.

 

[mkollman74]

It's a liberty issue. Government has no right to tell me or any other man or woman what they can or cannot do with their body. Hard stop. Feelings are irrelevant imo.

Fetus is not a child, or a baby, or whatever else you want to call it at any stage, and regardless of whatever any portion of the government has decided to label it as. The argument of life is irrelevant. While it's still in the womb, it belongs to the mother, and she get's to choose to do whatever she wants. Hard stop. Dead, "alive", whatever.

Enforcing reproductive guidelines on individuals is along the lines of strict sharia law and shit. They align quite well actually.

No matter what the law/gov says, and no matter what you or anyone else says, dictating what people can and cannot do with their own body is a complete infringement on individual liberties.

What about the point of view that they are not doing it to their own body, but to an entirely unique human body?

 

[mkollman74]

That's not the issue, though. Liberty comes first.

Liberty is not the absence of responsibility.