Is This the End of Roe v. Wade?

[DoubleDuce]

@mnben87

It is kinda semantics on what should be done. Before viability, what difference does it make? The result is the same.

I think one could make an argument that if killing the unborn is safer for the mother, that she would then be justified to make that decision.

Why do we make the distinction outside of the womb? You can have a baby born with severe disease, incapable of living more than a few hours, and it’s still illegal to kill them in those hours.

@mnben87

No. I think terminating the pregnancy is justified by the woman having rights to her own body. There wouldn’t be a justification for the killing of a born child.

Ok. Then the destined to suffer is a bit of a red herring. It’s not pertinent to your stance. However, you need to expand your statement that a woman should have control over her body and the body of the distinct human inside her.

@mnben87

Do we really need to pretend that taking a baby to the fire department is anywhere close to the scope of pregnancy and delivery?

One of those things involves major changes to the woman’s body, puts here at a risk of death (that is much higher than going to the fire department).

It is reasonable to require someone to rescue a child drowning in a fountain, it isn’t so reasonable require someone run into a burning building to save a child. That is about the difference in scope that you are proposing is the same.

Well again it’s pertinent to your initial argument of not requiring things of people’s body. We do that all the time in a million ways. It becomes a difference in magnitude rather than a difference in kind. Let’s say I want a knee replacement but regulations make me get a knee scope first and even then maybe they make me undergo some other surgery I don’t want first.

@mnben87

This isn’t one of them. Assuming one is better because it is natural and the other isn’t is not rational. Dying of untreated cancer is natural, chemo isn’t. Which one is the better option. Which one should be done for someone with cancer? The natural non-intervention?

It is the difference between a negative an positive right. And that’s a huge inconsistency in the comparison. They are very very different things rationally and morally. A right to chemo would be a positive right. A right to a kidney would be a positive right. The right not to be aborted is a negative right.

@mnben87

Those things are for after viability. What if the mother doesn’t want to wait until viability because she doesn’t want her body to change in a way she doesn’t like?

they can’t induce before viability? News to me if its true.

@mnben87

I am not missing that. I don’t necessarily see the killing being logically supported with my line of reasoning. I think it is a convenient side effect for the mothers of unwanted pregnancies. They wouldn’t do an abortion if the unborn were removed and survived. I think that the viability bans are correct, but not for the stated reasons (the child feeling pain). It is correct because at that point abortion should only remove the unborn. The fact is basically nobody would do that procedure, so in practice has the same effect (no abortions after viability).

Fair enough. But I think there are plenty of abortions after viability still. It may not be millions early abortion numbers, but it’s bigger than something like school shootings.

@mnben87

I could be wrong here, but didn’t Roe establish that abortion would be banned after viability? I think they got that right.

No. To this point abortions are legal up to birth depending on your legislature. Roe didn’t ban the killing of a 9 month old baby already in the birth canal moments from opening it’s eyes and taking it’s first breath. It only allowed regulation based on a hugely outdated and incorrect notion of viability. Our federal congress was even pushing to pass laws to make that legal everywhere recently. Again, you say that you are pro-choice, but you should note that you align far more closely with Republicans on the nuts and bolts.

[NickViar]

@Andrewgen_Receptors

It’s easy not to need a big government when you don’t have big cities

It’s also super diverse.

[mnben87]

@jshaving

for you atheists out there, do you feel 100% confident in your beliefs, or do you have times when you question them?

@jshaving

I’m genuinely curious: are you completely confident in your belief of no God/god(s)?

An atheist can specifically believe there is no god(s), but that isn’t required (and I think it isn’t rational). One is an atheist if they do not believe in a god(s), which is different than specifically believing in no god(s). If you are interested in this, you can look up the terms soft atheist and hard atheist.

The term atheist refers to belief. Agnostic refers to knowledge. A person who is agnostic (claims they don’t know), is an atheist (unless they take the position of not being convinced of a god, but still believe, which seems weird to me). that usually doesn’t understand the distinction between the terms referring to knowledge and belief.

I am not convinced no god exists, but I think the time to believe in a god is when I am convinced in that god’s existence. As an example, I am not convinced 100% that aliens haven’t visited earth, but I don’t believe it because there is a possibility of it. I need evidence of that event to believe it.

@Andrewgen_Receptors

For this reason, im not atheist; i simply don’t belive in a higher power outside of humanity.

You might not identify as one, but you meet the description.

@DoubleDuce

Why do we make the distinction outside of the womb? You can have a baby born with severe disease, incapable of living more than a few hours, and it’s still illegal to kill them in those hours.

I am not sure. I think we should be able to mercy kill humans. We seem to understand that it is fine to do with animals. Not just fine, but the more ethical thing to do. I am in favor of euthanasia in certain circumstances. If that baby is for sure going to die and is suffering immensely, I think it would be the right thing to do. For verbal individuals, I think consent needs to be provided though.

@DoubleDuce

However, you need to expand your statement that a woman should have control over her body and the body of the distinct human inside her.

I agree with this. The mother is the one with all the decision making rights IMO.

@DoubleDuce

Well again it’s pertinent to your initial argument of not requiring things of people’s body.

The thing most people agree with is that using ones body in a non medical way (helping someone else with a task for example) is different than in a medical way.

For example, we don’t have any laws requiring a human use their body’s materials (blood, organs, tissues, etc…) to help another. That is something almost everyone agrees with. To make things simpler, I’ll stick to that type of context when I argue bodily autonomy rights since almost everybody agrees with that. Do you agree with that?

@DoubleDuce

It is the difference between a negative an positive right. And that’s a huge inconsistency in the comparison. They are very very different things rationally and morally. A right to chemo would be a positive right. A right to a kidney would be a positive right. The right not to be aborted is a negative right.

I had to think about this for a minute. What if I reorganize my argument a bit, with the understanding that from above you think the born and unborn should be extended equal rights. I’ll word it consistently in regards to positive and negative rights. Here are the points.

1. The unborn and born should have equal rights
2. If the born should not have rights to the mothers body, neither should the unborn
3. The born requires a kidney donation and no other is available besides the mother’s kidney
4. The mother should not be forced to donate a kidney
5. The unborn require the mother’s body (blood, organs, nutrients, etc) to survive
6. The mother should not be forced to to use the contents of her body to support the unborn

I believe that the negative and positive rights are now consistent.

@DoubleDuce

they can’t induce before viability? News to me if its true.

I don’t know TBH. Maybe slightly before viability if using life support. I doubt they can at like 12 weeks.

@DoubleDuce

Fair enough. But I think there are plenty of abortions after viability still. It may not be millions early abortion numbers, but it’s bigger than something like school shootings.

I agree. I am against after viability abortions (I think haha).

@DoubleDuce

No. To this point abortions are legal up to birth depending on your legislature. Roe didn’t ban the killing of a 9 month old baby already in the birth canal moments from opening it’s eyes and taking it’s first breath.

I agree with viability bans.

[DoubleDuce]

@mnben87

I had to think about this for a minute. What if I reorganize my argument a bit, with the understanding that from above you think the born and unborn should be extended equal rights. I’ll word it consistently in regards to positive and negative rights. Here are the points.

1. The unborn and born should have equal rights
2. If the born should not have rights to the mothers body, neither should the unborn
3. The born requires a kidney donation and no other is available besides the mother’s kidney
4. The mother should not be forced to donate a kidney
5. The unborn require the mother’s body (blood, organs, nutrients, etc) to survive
6. The mother should not be forced to to use the contents of her body to support the unborn

I believe that the negative and positive rights are now consistent.

Yes, and I pretty much agree with this. However, it needs another step: The mother can’t willfully kill the born, the mother can’t willfully kill the unborn.

@mnben87

I agree with viability bans.

We aren’t too far apart. Thanks for the discussion.

[mnben87]

@DoubleDuce

Yes, and I pretty much agree with this. However, it needs another step: The mother can’t willfully kill the born, the mother can’t willfully kill the unborn.

I’ve thought about this, and looked at several other arguments (the violinist argument for example). These arguments seem to specifically note removal of support, not killing. I think that is all that is justified with this argument.

But if you think something like a mercy killing is justified, and removal of support is justified, you could end up with a procedure that looks a lot like current abortion. We can remove the mother’s support for the unborn (assume the unborn can’t survive even with life support), what is the right thing to do in that situation? Let it die on it’s own in suffering, or put it out of it’s misery?

[DoubleDuce]

Yeah, for honestly I don’t know and it’s messy. I can say that I much prefer the idea of the life of the child being weighed and measured entirely independently (after removal) of the mother even if the result might be the same.

[RT_Nomad]

@mnben87

• The unborn and born should have equal rights
• If the born should not have rights to the mothers body, neither should the unborn
• The born requires a kidney donation and no other is available besides the mother’s kidney
• The mother should not be forced to donate a kidney
• The unborn require the mother’s body (blood, organs, nutrients, etc) to survive
• The mother should not be forced to to use the contents of her body to support the unborn

IMO, you are neglecting to acknowledge the implicit contract that the mother has made when she had sex. Seedtime and harvest is here as long as the earth remains. She has knowingly engaged in an activity that could produce a life (baby) that requires room and board within her body for 9 months. It is disingenuous to suggest that in your logic that her contract isn’t considered.

[mnben87]

@RT_Nomad

IMO, you are neglecting to acknowledge the implicit contract that the mother has made when she had sex.

I see no evidence of an implicit contract.

The burden to show this implicit contract exists falls upon those that claim it exists. Until it is shown to exist, it should be assumed to not exist.

[RT_Nomad]

@mnben87

I see no evidence of an implicit contract.

The burden to show this implicit contract exists falls upon those that claim it exists. Until it is shown to exist, it should be assumed to not exist.

And therein lies the difference between the pro-life and pro-choice groups.

I believe in seedtime and harvest, so I can never acknowledge the premises of your logic.

[mnben87]

I have a desire to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. It seems that evidence and rational thinking is the best path towards that goal.

I think it is rational to reject an assertion I have my doubts about until it is shown to be true. Do you not agree with that approach?

@RT_Nomad

Seedtime and harvest is here as long as the earth remains.

Does a farmer that plants his crop in the spring have an implicit contract to harvest that crop come fall? Is he in violation of this implicit contract if he plows over his field to plant something else?

The farmer has the right to do with his field as he chooses. No implicit contract exists.

[RT_Nomad]

Let’s examine the first premise of your logic.

@mnben87

The unborn and born should have equal rights

How can the unborn have equal rights, if the two responsible for the unborn’s conception have no responsibility for its survival? They have responsibility for their living child’s (less than 18) survival. Don’t have sex; you don’t risk the responsibility, hence the implicit contract.

[RT_Nomad]

@mnben87

Does a farmer that plants his crop in the spring have an implicit contract to harvest that crop come fall? Is he in violation of this implicit contract if he plows over his field to plant something else?

The farmer has the right to do with his field as he chooses. No implicit contract exists.

Come on now, there is clearly no human life involved in your example.

[mnben87]

I addressed this above with doubleduce:

@mnben87

The thing most people agree with is that using ones body in a non medical way (helping someone else with a task for example) is different than in a medical way.

For example, we don’t have any laws requiring a human use their body’s materials (blood, organs, tissues, etc…) to help another. That is something almost everyone agrees with. To make things simpler, I’ll stick to that type of context when I argue bodily autonomy rights since almost everybody agrees with that. Do you agree with that?

In regards to equal rights to the mother.

[RT_Nomad]

This statement neglects the implicit contract, and premise 1 of your logic.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t see any avenue to change my mind, but you are free to try.

[RT_Nomad]

Throughout my many years of discussion with an extremely good logic minded person, I have found that their conclusion always seems accurate. The thing that I must do is to closely examine and test the premises.

[zecarlo]

@RT_Nomad

you are neglecting to acknowledge the implicit contract that the mother has made when she had sex

And if she were raped? Or if she’s a minor who can’t legally enter into a contract? Can a zygote enter into a contract? If we want to go down the road of implicit contracts, we better be ready for all of the potential implications that would go with that concept.

[RT_Nomad]

@zecarlo

And if she were raped? Or if she’s a minor who can’t legally enter into a contract?

Okay, so what?

@zecarlo

Can a zygote enter into a contract?

The zygote is the result of the contract, who benefits from the contract.

[DoubleDuce]

@RT_Nomad

@zecarlo

Can a zygote enter into a contract?

The zygote is the result of the contract, who benefits from the contract.

This is an interesting point in the context of constitutional rights. The constitution is a contract than you implicitly become party to by being a US citizen. There is no explicit signing required. If you throw out the idea of implicit contracts, you throw out the constitution. Not just for zygotes, but for adults.

[hustlinghat93]

@mnben87

1. The unborn and born should have equal rights
2. If the born should not have rights to the mothers body, neither should the unborn
3. The born requires a kidney donation and no other is available besides the mother’s kidney
4. The mother should not be forced to donate a kidney
5. The unborn require the mother’s body (blood, organs, nutrients, etc) to survive
6. The mother should not be forced to to use the contents of her body to support the unborn

I believe that the negative and positive rights are now consistent.

For me there are two hurdles in that thinking, with the first coming straight from point 1.

You use “equal rights” which I agree with but seem to to ignore the fact that for the born the standard and expectation of care differs in two major ways:

1. The standard of care is greater for the born depending on their vulnerability. Even an adult with mental health issues has the right to a higher standard of care than the average person

2. The expectation of care for children who are born decreases with age. A parent cannot leave a 1 month old baby at home for hours alone but doing so with a 10 year old is not as bad. Another example regarding being self sufficient is that the expectation for a parent to physically feed a child and wipe it’s ass disappears when the child can do so themselves

So logically speaking if the the born and unborn have the same rights should that not translate to the unborn having the same right to expect more care depending on their vulnerability and lack of self sufficiency, that the born have?

Considering the unborn are more vulnerable and not self sufficient what so ever should they not expect to be cared for until they are no longer require that amount of care?

The second hurdle for me is that donating a kidney is most times permanent where as using the mother’s body to support a baby lasts 9 months. There is a difference between the lasting removal of an organ from ones body and ones body being used for a time frame.

[DoubleDuce]

@hustlinghat93

Considering the unborn are more vulnerable and not self sufficient what so ever should they not expect to be cared for until they are no longer require that amount of care?

I don’t think that’s always true. A full term healthy unborn is capable of more self sufficiency than a 24 week preemie on life support.