The Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Stay up north in Canada raj. “Abraham Lincoln cited the Declaration to support his argument that slavery was not legal, in part on the language that â??all menâ?? were granted certain inalienable rights.” - http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/declaration-of-independence.aspx -

"The writings of the founders of the nation and of the constitution provide the best look at their reasoning behind the actual laws and governing system that they put into effect. Now, when the US Supreme Court reviews cases of constitutional law, they use these secondary sources to help interpret the law.

“So while not a ‘legal document’ as such, it may have legal ramifications if it reveals something of import to the SCOTUS justices.” - Is the United States Declaration of Independence a leagal document? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board -

Objective was the word that started this whole tangent - Objective - definition of objective by The Free Dictionary - and all people have a right to life.

[/quote]

So your source is a guy named Sage Rat on a board called straightdope.com? You’re serious? Where’s push with his gold bars when you need’em? Even Sage Rate wrote “it may have legal ramifications” and didn’t even give a definitive yes.

The US constitution didn’t even exist when the Declaration of Independence was created and only a handful of people signed both documents.

Lastly, they use the term “men” not women, children or fetuses. How do you know they were even talking about the unborn?

122

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

But it’s good to know it’s ok to “abort” 1 year old kids.

[/quote]

If this was meant as a stand-alone joke, funny. If it was meant as a satirical criticism of my position, you don’t fully understand my position. [/quote]

I know you were just arguing against the idea that we can not prove nor disprove consciousness.

But if we were speaking about consciousness and self-awareness, it was because BrianHanson proposed it was a criterium of “humanness” and as such a criterium of our “right to life”.

I was just demonstrating (ab absurdo) why it can’t be the case : kids have a right to life well before he/she can do the rouge test.
[/quote]

A right to life is not an objective fact. I’m not proposing we kill infants because they don’t know the difference, the point I was trying to get at was that the fetus can’t make a decision either way both because it can’t feel and because it isn’t self-aware, so other than the mother’s decision, what else is there to consider?[/quote]

That’s all well and good that a new independent human being in the fetal stage of development is purportedly (not that you can know for certain) neither self-aware nor does it purportedly (not that you can know for certain) feel pain before a given month, but these statements in and of themselves are not reasons against abortion in the first place. They are mere conditions, and still pretty iffy ones at that.

What I want to know is, why? Why does it make a difference if the little tiny life can’t feel pain, or doesn’t yet know it is its own fully independent human being? You are in very dangerous territory. Genocide territory. I’m not being hyperbolic here. And both kamui and I can bury you in historical precedent if you want to continue down this road.

If you are going to demonstrate that your some month old unborn, unfeeling, self-awarenessless child is good for killin, you had better provide some actual reasons why your criterion should be any different for, say, anybody in a coma, or a totally dead drunk husband whose final act before crashing onto the living room couch one last time was to lay the final straw on the back of a camel who just happened to belong to his murderous wife.

She can use your argument, as you have presented it, in her defense. Because he fits your criteria, to a T. So now you will have to start piling all sorts of addendums and complications onto your argument in order to keep it balanced. But it’s gonna fall down eventually. It always does. Because trust me, subjected to a little scrutiny, your ethics will be shown to be untenable.

123

First off, my apologies I thought you were honestly trying to be mindless. I was tired and I was being short. Again I ask to please understand the complete post before you reply. At times I have hope and you even admit the unborn are alive. Yet shouldn’t they be entitled to the same rights as another human?

This was never addressed previously, so I ask you specifically; Can one person own another human person?

[quote]BrianHanson wrote: . . . . I wonder how the “unborn” fared?

I liked it better when we were civil. This is going off on a tangent that has no impact on current issues regarding abortion anyway. [/quote]

124

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,
If you destroy that zygote that zygote cannot be replaced, but that zygote will be destroyed either way when it splits into new cells. A zygote is not a person. If you won’t accept that then there is probably no way we can advance any further in this conversation. Try this hypothetical: If you had the choice of saving your living breathing happy 1 year old child or saving a zygote in your wifes uterus, which would you choose? If you have to think about it then you are probably a bad parent, if you look for a “Kobiashi Maru” solution (Star Trek) I will tell you in advance there is none. It is a simple argument of value, would you flip a coin, since both lives are the same in value? Or would you choose the zygote, with the hopes that it would be a cancer curing Einstein brain having genius. I will make it easier, there is no 2nd child, just a zygote and your wife, if your zygote lives your wife will die, do you kill the zygote?

As far as “Laws on the Books” that is definitely not a winner, here are some laws in the states that have fetal murder laws:

Adultery or Fornication (living togeather while not married or having sex with someone that is not your spouse) results in a fine of $500 and/or 6 months in prison.

Unnatural intercourse, if both parties voluntarily participate, results in a maximum sentence of 10 years and $10,000.

A law provides that school teachers who bob their hair will not get a raise.

A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month.

Flirtation between men and women on the streets of Little Rock may result in a 30-day jail term.

It is unlawful to walk one?s cow down Main Street after 1:00 PM on Sunday.

Installation of bathtubs with four legs resembling animal paws is prohibited.

get the point? There are laws that make no sense everywhere, and while fetal murder laws might make more sense than those above, I’m sure that at least one person will eventually have a lawyer solid enough to win the case by arguing for equal protection (if doctors aren’t charged why should I be). But until them more than half the states give no legal standing to zygotes, and those that do really have an issue with animal paw bathtubs.[/quote]

Bringing up laws that have nothing to do with the topic is called a strawman… The fact is that at least in some places a person can be charged with murder for killing an unborn human even at the earliest stages… All that needs to happen for it to become the law of the land is a series of appeals. With all the scientific evidence available now, that should not be a problem.

FACT: There is no such thing as a human precursor. It simply doesn’t exist. You cannot wish it in to existence. You have zero evidence of such a ridiculous notion. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

125

I thought in Canada everyone smoked ganja and I was thinking of you when I found the description of the document. I apologize if it wasn’t well received. At the very least, the Declaration was a springboard to create the further documents which shaped my country.

So men is supposed to qualify women, blacks and children? Of course, I agree! However the unborn share all of their traits with every single person alive today such as women, blacks and children, save four. Yet the unborn aren’t the same according to you?

Address this point please; Can you ever own another human being?

[quote]therajraj wrote: So your source is a guy named Sage Rat on a board called straightdope.com? You’re serious? Where’s push with his gold bars when you need’em? Even Sage Rate wrote “it may have legal ramifications” and didn’t even give a definitive yes.

The US constitution didn’t even exist when the Declaration of Independence was created and only a handful of people signed both documents.

Lastly, they use the term “men” not women, children or fetuses. How do you know they were even talking about the unborn?

[/quote]

126

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

The Church has always held that the woman is the second victim of abortion.

[/quote]

Can you go into more detail on the above if you don’t mind?[/quote]

This article speaks on it better than I could: Why the States Did Not Prosecute Women for Abortion Before Roe v. Wade - Americans United for Life

[quote]The political claimâ??that women were or will be prosecuted or jailed under abortion lawsâ??has been made so frequently by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW over the past 40 years that it has become an urban legend. It shows the astonishing power of contemporary media to make a complete falsehood into a truism.

For 30 years, abortion advocates have claimedâ??without any evidence and contrary to the well-documented practice of ALL 50 statesâ??that women were jailed before Roe and would be jailed if Roe falls (or if state abortion prohibitions are reinstated).

This claim rests on not one but two falsehoods:

First, the almost uniform state policy before Roe was that abortion laws targeted abortionists, not women. Abortion laws targeted those who performed abortion, not women. In fact, the states expressly treated women as the second â??victimâ?? of abortion; state courts expressly called the woman a second â??victim.â?? Abortionists were the exclusive target of the law.

Second, the myth that women will be jailed relies, however, on the myth that â??overturningâ?? Roe will result in the immediate re-criminalization of abortion. If Roe was overturned today, abortion would be legal in at least 42-43 states tomorrow, and likely all 50 states, for the simple reason that nearly all of the state abortion prohibitions have been either repealed or are blocked by state versions of Roe adopted by state courts. The issue is entirely academic. The legislatures of the states would have to enact new abortion lawsâ??and these would almost certainly continue the uniform state policy before Roe that abortion laws targeted abortionists and treated women as the second victim of abortion. There will be no prosecutions of abortionists unless the states pass new laws after Roe is overturned.

This political claim is not an abstract question that is left to speculationâ??there is a long record of states treating women as the second victim of abortion in the law that can be found and read. To state the policy in legal terms, the states prosecuted the principal (the abortionist) and did not prosecute someone who might be considered an accomplice (the woman) in order to more effectively enforce the law against the principal. And that will most certainly be the state policy if the abortion issue is returned to the states.

Why did the states target abortionists and treat women as a victim of the abortionist?

It was based on three policy judgments: the point of abortion law is effective enforcement against abortionists, the woman is the second victim of the abortionist, and prosecuting women is counterproductive to the goal of effective enforcement of the law against abortionists.

The irony is that, instead of states prosecuting women, the exact opposite is true. To protect their own hide, it was abortionists (like the cult hero and abortionist Ruth Barnett when Oregon last prosecuted her in 1968), who, when they were prosecuted, sought to haul the women they aborted into court. As a matter of criminal evidentiary law, if the court treated the woman as an accomplice, she could not testify against the abortionist, and the case against the abortionist would be thrown out.

There are â??only two cases in which a woman was charged in any State with participating in her own abortionâ??: from Pennsylvania in 19111 and from Texas in 1922.2 There is no documented case since 1922 in which a woman has been charged in an abortion in the United States.

Based on this recordâ??spanning 50 states over the century before Roe v. Wadeâ??it is even more certain that the political claim that any woman might be questioned or prosecuted for a spontaneous miscarriage has no record in history and will certainly not be the policy of any state in the future.[/quote]

127

Can’t we just put this to rest and say pre 3 months in cases of rape, etc.vor if it endangers the life of the mother =begrudgingly acceptable, those that are anti-in all cases, well you’d better have at least 2 or 3 adopted kids or STFU

128

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

But it’s good to know it’s ok to “abort” 1 year old kids.

[/quote]

Good thing I waited to read the rest of the thread before posting. Saved me some time.

TT, aside from the fact that you have some pretty primitive ideas about levels of fetal development as well as misconceptions about the actual brutality of the abortion itself, your argument itself is all over the place.

Which is it that is important? Is is self-awareness? Or the ability to feel pain? I thought we were still talking about a child on the inner threshold of the vagina. Now you are dropping “points” that could only support infanticide, yet were speaking earlier as if pain should be the deciding factor.

More importantly, please do explain WHY self-awareness, pain, or whatever your other reasons in favor of abortion matter at all. [/quote]

Since the fetus isn’t self-aware, its perspective is irrelevant. Since the fetus can’t feel pain (before 5 months), the actual method of abortion is largely irrelevant. The only factor remaining is the mother’s choice.

I’m not opposed to abortion because I see no cruelty in it. To the contrary, I think it’s a great mercy to not bring an unwanted child into the world.

I just don’t see the problem.[/quote]

So you attach ‘personhood’ to self-awareness? You have several problems. First, you cannot prove anything, other than yourself, is self aware. In a technical sense, you cannot actually prove the awareness you believe to have is self awareness… So you banking on something you can’t even know exists at all.
Second, it’s a slippery slope. As Kamui mentioned before there are many instances where a person can be in various stages in life and be in a state where they are not aware of anything. Our very own dear Kneedragger was in a coma for 6 months. He was not self-aware and could not feel pain, by your definition, he was not a person during that period of time. That’s why that argument fails. If you apply such silly notions to babies, you have to apply them every where where they occur. By your definition of person, somebody who dies during an operation, wasn’t human at the time of death, because of sedation, they were not self aware and felt no pain.

So forget about that stupid shit. There is no descernable break in the human life cycle save for death. No matter how you try to spin something the facts still remain

  • The zygote is alive
  • The zygote is human
  • The zygote is autonomous

A full grown person has these traits:

  • The person is alive
  • The person is human
  • The person is autonomous

No amount of wishful thinking is going to make this not true. My advise, watch where you put your dick. Because if you knock up a girl and parcipate in abortion you are an accomplice to murder, period.

129

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

A fetus isn’t a concious being, nor can it feel pain. I don’t see any reason to not let the final decision be the mother’s. [/quote]

You cannot prove anything has consciousness or does not. You cannot look at a rock outside and know that it has no consciousness, so your wrong.

Kamui already spoke to these ridiculous assertions you’re making. Go reread his posts…[/quote]

I know you haven’t been in school for a while, but this is high-school level information now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouge_test[/quote]

You’re an anti-rock bigot.

Rock can not do the test because they have no hands.
They can not clean themselves.

It’s like totally unfair !

But it’s good to know it’s ok to “abort” 1 year old kids.
[/quote]

This is what people are failing to recognize with the whole consciousness issue. There is no way to determine what or who is and has consciousness. I never found the law that says consciousness can only exist in living things. Says who? Some living things are able to articulate a pattern of behaviour we associate with consciousness, but we cannot know for sure. Since it is impossible to tell at all, it really has no business being a reliable test of humanity. Particularly since lots of living things make this same demonstration. For that to be the litmus test of humanity expands the definition to most animals as well.

130

[quote]storey420 wrote:
well you’d better have at least 2 or 3 adopted kids or STFU[/quote]

Why?

Oh, and no.

131

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Can’t we just put this to rest and say pre 3 months in cases of rape, etc.vor if it endangers the life of the mother =begrudgingly acceptable, those that are anti-in all cases, well you’d better have at least 2 or 3 adopted kids or STFU[/quote]

Well, my hard ass nature would still say, your still killing a human being. However, just looking at a numbers perspective if I could restrict the incidence of abortion to only your prescribed circumstances I would accept the compromise. 1000 is waaaaay better than 1.2 million.

132

Pat,

You are trying to confuse the issue by adding an absurd element to the equation, if I get my wisdom teeth pulled and I choose the gas, I am still a person.

We give rights to people because they are alive and as such meet a certain set of criteria (sensation, thought etc).

If those criteria are interrupted for an hour or a month or even a minute, they do not lose their standing as human beings. Being sedated for surgery is not the cessation of personhood, it is sedation.

A zygote or blastocyte has never been sentient, has never had the ability to feel pain, they have no brain, no organs, none of the “parts” that would allow them to ever achieve personhood, therefore they are not people.

We are not taking away the life of a human being, since it never achieved the status of a human being.

133

Pat,

And I agree with the end of your last post

" I could restrict the incidence of abortion to only your prescribed circumstances I would accept the compromise."

134

KD,

In response to:

“Can you ever own another human being”

I will replace “ever” with “now” because as we know people have owned other people. As far as now, I don’t believe any countries allow slavery, but there are countries, religions, and situations that give people (typically women) so few rights that people might confuse them with property. I am sure this is a trap, but I will say no, at this time nobody can “own” another human being (I say that with my definition of human being in place)

Just so you can read it I have an abstract for you, it is the reason I don’t argue for Pro-Choice beyond the first tri-mester:

Self-ownership, abortion and infanticide.

Doctors have been placed in an anomalous position by abortion laws which sanction the termination of a fetus while in a woman’s womb, yet call it murder when a physician attempts to end the life of a fetus which has somehow survived such a procedure. This predicament, the doctors’ dilemma, can be resolved by adopting a strategy which posits the right to ownership of one’s own body for human beings. Such an approach will generate a consistent policy prescription, one that sanctions the right of all pregnant women to abortions, yet grants the fetus, after it becomes viable as a potentially independent person, a right to its own body. The doctors’ dilemma is surmounted, then, by requiring that abortions of viable fetuses be performed in a manner that will produce a live delivery. Hence, infanticide and termination of viable fetuses are proscribed.

135

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Can’t we just put this to rest and say pre 3 months in cases of rape, etc.vor if it endangers the life of the mother =begrudgingly acceptable, those that are anti-in all cases, well you’d better have at least 2 or 3 adopted kids or STFU[/quote]

Does it count if I have unaborted children of my own?

To agree with your argument, do I have to abort a child in the first trimester or STFU?

136

Should I STFU if I just don’t like the idea of killing human beings who are unlucky enough to fall on the wrong side of some arbitrarily drawn line that was determined in the same manner we decide to eat tuna rather than dolphin?

137

How about I just not STFU?

How about that?

138

I don’t know if this has been covered before but suppose abortion is outlawed; that won’t stop women from having abortions.

What will the penalty be for a woman who has an illegal abortion?

139

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Should I STFU if I just don’t like the idea of killing human beings who are unlucky enough to fall on the wrong side of some arbitrarily drawn line that was determined in the same manner we decide to eat tuna rather than dolphin? [/quote]

Not to derail this thread, but dolphins shouldn’t be consumed because of the extremely high mercury levels contained within the animal.

Dolphins live up to 40 years while tuna only 10. The mercury levels are waaaaaay higher in dolphins generally.

140

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I don’t know if this has been covered before but suppose abortion is outlawed; that won’t stop women from having abortions.

What will the penalty be for a woman who has an illegal abortion?

[/quote]

It won’t stop all women from having abortions, no. But it will stop most, but you cannot fix stupid. The fact that people will break a law is not a good reason for not having the law. The law needs to determine if it’s dedicated to protecting human life or not. The law needs to be based on the facts of what it is, not who thinks what, whether or not people will break the law.

I am not fond of talking penalties, but I believe there should be a phasing in period of probably about 10 years. But the penalty should be based on intent. If you act out of ignorance the penalty is less, if you act in a premeditated calculated manner more.
However, I would typically punish the women as accomplices, the providers would get the full extent, murder.

The precedence has already been set anyway…These yukos are facing murder charges:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-30/justice/justice_maryland-abortion-doctors-murder_1_steven-brigham-abortion-clinic-fetuses?_s=PM:JUSTICE
Why? because apparently they were bad at their job and finished the babies off outside the womb… Imagine, if they were more skilled and chopping up and sucking the kid out in utero, they would still be practicing…But seconds later, it’s murder.

So is there already a legal precedence set? Apparently so…