Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 10628 times)

wachtwoord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1380
It's what many believe cause it's what's (repeatedly) told to us at different levels of education. Separation of church and state!

The truth is, there is no separation. As you say, it a one way wall and separation implies no relation.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"


stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2943
Quote
I never understand bans on abortion and suicide exist while countries maintain to uphold their constitution above all else. Isn't the right for self-determination in there? Banning abortion and suicide is in direct conflict with that.

How is the discussion here longer than what I just wrote? Oh yeah people are irrational, emotional and inconsistent. Carry on I guess .... :(

Suicide is self harm, where abortion is taking the life of another being. I don't see them on the same playing field. The argument is that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be guaranteed to that unborn child whom was forced into the world.

Abortion is not taking a life. It's removing an unwanted, parasitic and harmful organism from your body. The consequence of this removal may be death sure, but that is not the goal in itself.

Self-determination includes the right to remove things from your body, since the inside of ones body is part of the self.


It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna. You can count the arms on it. Does that mean the woman has 4 arms?  And two unique DNAs???  ::)

If someone eats a worm (or anything else living) does that mean that the worm is no longer its own being just because its location changed? Now eventually the worm would become part of the body as the body digests it...but I don't think it works that way with a baby. By your reasoning, it certainly seems so.

By the way, we're all organisms.  ;)

Lol you didn't understand what I wrote at all. Of course they are biologically separate organisms and logically distinct entities (albeit one relatively much less complex).

I'm saying the inside of the body (in this case the inside of a woman,'s uterus, but any part suffices) is part of a person.Therefore the person (by the right of self determination) may remove things from there. A thing can be anything from foreign objects (eg swallowed pen), to other organisms (eg human fetus, parasitic worm) to parts of the person itself (eg taking out part of your own liver).

It's you body and only you has the right of allowing things to remain inside or not. People should stop telling (or in this case forcing) others what to do with their body.

If they are separate humans, why does the mother have the "right" to terminate it? Does a dictator have the "right" to terminate people living in his country? He certainly believes in "self-determination".

The mother pregnant woman does not terminate it. She removed it from her body as is her right. It dies because it cannot sustain itself which is not her fault or responsibility.

If you, somehow, lodge yourself inside my body I will certainly forcibly remove you, as is my moral (and hopefully) legal right. Any neccessary harm this causes you is justified.

The situation of a pregnant woman is no different (other than the fact it's not the fault of the fetus either).

Don't tell others what to do with their bodies, they own it, not you.

If it's not the fault of the fetus, why does the fetus face the punishment? Who else faces death for another's choice and actions?

How is this moral?

Do you know how abortions work? They don't just remove it and it dies. It's sucked out in through a tube many times. If someone put you into a closed house and suctioned you out, is that cool? If someone invited (or I suppose a better word is kidnapped since you're being in the house through no fault of your own) you over to the house and then did it, is that cool?

Here's a bit more about how they're removed (note this is from a pro-life site):

"Suction aspiration: This is the procedure most often used in the first trimester of pregnancy (the first three months). The abortionist inserts a suction tube (similar to a vacuum hose with an extremely sharp end) into the mother’s womb. The suction and cutting edge dismember the baby while the hose sucks the body parts into a collection bottle."

Yep, not killing it here.
Paul

cubsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1329
It's unfortunate the lengths to which pro-choice advocates will go to justify abortion - especially late term.

Just for argument sake: disregard rape and incest related abortions which constitute about 1% of all.

Don't use the marginal cases to make a blanket case for all abortions. You can have those.

But take the economic argument - the baby will be a burden and can't sustain itself anyway.
Well, why not allow me to disconnect a living person from a dialysis machine or pacemaker if they are an economic burden to me?

Take the "it's not a life" argument - like the smart lady in the video Paul posted: "if the fetus is not a life, then why does it need to be aborted?"

Almost more repulsive to me - the argument that anyone other than the mother should have any say in the matter.
Who will advocate for the defenseless child/fetus?   
Why is it wrong to advocate for the defenseless - whether you are a man or a woman?
What right do you have to tell me I can not advocate for them - after all why do we have laws to protect the innocent.

I get incensed that pro-choice advocates are so selfish that they care a whit about killing innocents at ANY point along the line.
(you decide when life begins - but be reasonable)

By this logic, we should be able to do away with anyone that is an economic burden to us.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 06:17:01 AM by cubsfan »

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2943
“Personally I think after consciousness has been developed you are talking about a human life. In terms of legality, I think after the first trimester there should be some justifying circumstances such as the jeopardy of the mother's life, or abnormal development of the fetus. “

That sounds about right. But people will believe what they want to believe and it is unlikely any minds will be changed here. However, I suppose that any discussion that stimulates thought, if not reconsideration, is not really a waste of time.

I just find it hard to believe that in the 21st century a law such as Alabama has brought forward could actually become a reality.

So if someone losses consciousness are they no longer human?

Also, you quoted before that "my morality isn't your morality." That's fair. I will say mine is more logically consistent though. No one has given a good counter to this so I'll try again:

A man and woman both agree to have intercourse. Both know that there is a chance the women could get pregnant. The woman always wanted a child but the man does not. He requests an abortion and offers to pay. The woman, having the ultimate right over her body, declines his request.

Now, since it's "her body, her choice" she has the baby.

So, do you think the man should be forced to pay child support? It was a unilateral decision after all. If you do force him to do so, why is that okay? Your morality isn't his morality, after all.  Isn't this an extremest view - forcing people to uphold your morality?

Keep in mind - this is actual force. Someone else is forcing someone else to do something. When a woman has a child, no one is forcing anything. Her body is doing that itself.

Please actually answer this and not ignore like you have most of the other hard questions.

This question is fair game for everyone.

by the way, lc, the mortgage agreement doesn't really make sense. Both sides are agreeing to the mortgage. Both sides here are not agreeing to the baby - just the intercourse.


« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 06:39:49 AM by stahleyp »
Paul

wachtwoord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1380
Quote
I never understand bans on abortion and suicide exist while countries maintain to uphold their constitution above all else. Isn't the right for self-determination in there? Banning abortion and suicide is in direct conflict with that.

How is the discussion here longer than what I just wrote? Oh yeah people are irrational, emotional and inconsistent. Carry on I guess .... :(

Suicide is self harm, where abortion is taking the life of another being. I don't see them on the same playing field. The argument is that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be guaranteed to that unborn child whom was forced into the world.

Abortion is not taking a life. It's removing an unwanted, parasitic and harmful organism from your body. The consequence of this removal may be death sure, but that is not the goal in itself.

Self-determination includes the right to remove things from your body, since the inside of ones body is part of the self.


It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna. You can count the arms on it. Does that mean the woman has 4 arms?  And two unique DNAs???  ::)

If someone eats a worm (or anything else living) does that mean that the worm is no longer its own being just because its location changed? Now eventually the worm would become part of the body as the body digests it...but I don't think it works that way with a baby. By your reasoning, it certainly seems so.

By the way, we're all organisms.  ;)

Lol you didn't understand what I wrote at all. Of course they are biologically separate organisms and logically distinct entities (albeit one relatively much less complex).

I'm saying the inside of the body (in this case the inside of a woman,'s uterus, but any part suffices) is part of a person.Therefore the person (by the right of self determination) may remove things from there. A thing can be anything from foreign objects (eg swallowed pen), to other organisms (eg human fetus, parasitic worm) to parts of the person itself (eg taking out part of your own liver).

It's you body and only you has the right of allowing things to remain inside or not. People should stop telling (or in this case forcing) others what to do with their body.

If they are separate humans, why does the mother have the "right" to terminate it? Does a dictator have the "right" to terminate people living in his country? He certainly believes in "self-determination".

The mother pregnant woman does not terminate it. She removed it from her body as is her right. It dies because it cannot sustain itself which is not her fault or responsibility.

If you, somehow, lodge yourself inside my body I will certainly forcibly remove you, as is my moral (and hopefully) legal right. Any neccessary harm this causes you is justified.

The situation of a pregnant woman is no different (other than the fact it's not the fault of the fetus either).

Don't tell others what to do with their bodies, they own it, not you.

If it's not the fault of the fetus, why does the fetus face the punishment? Who else faces death for another's choice and actions?

How is this moral?


It does not face death because of the choice of another. It faces death because it cannot sustain itself.

No person has the obligation to sustain another, that ludicrous. The procedure is fine if no less harmful method is possible. It's like stand your ground to a threspasser on your property (your body).
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2943
Quote
I never understand bans on abortion and suicide exist while countries maintain to uphold their constitution above all else. Isn't the right for self-determination in there? Banning abortion and suicide is in direct conflict with that.

How is the discussion here longer than what I just wrote? Oh yeah people are irrational, emotional and inconsistent. Carry on I guess .... :(

Suicide is self harm, where abortion is taking the life of another being. I don't see them on the same playing field. The argument is that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be guaranteed to that unborn child whom was forced into the world.

Abortion is not taking a life. It's removing an unwanted, parasitic and harmful organism from your body. The consequence of this removal may be death sure, but that is not the goal in itself.

Self-determination includes the right to remove things from your body, since the inside of ones body is part of the self.


It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna. You can count the arms on it. Does that mean the woman has 4 arms?  And two unique DNAs???  ::)

If someone eats a worm (or anything else living) does that mean that the worm is no longer its own being just because its location changed? Now eventually the worm would become part of the body as the body digests it...but I don't think it works that way with a baby. By your reasoning, it certainly seems so.

By the way, we're all organisms.  ;)

Lol you didn't understand what I wrote at all. Of course they are biologically separate organisms and logically distinct entities (albeit one relatively much less complex).

I'm saying the inside of the body (in this case the inside of a woman,'s uterus, but any part suffices) is part of a person.Therefore the person (by the right of self determination) may remove things from there. A thing can be anything from foreign objects (eg swallowed pen), to other organisms (eg human fetus, parasitic worm) to parts of the person itself (eg taking out part of your own liver).

It's you body and only you has the right of allowing things to remain inside or not. People should stop telling (or in this case forcing) others what to do with their body.

If they are separate humans, why does the mother have the "right" to terminate it? Does a dictator have the "right" to terminate people living in his country? He certainly believes in "self-determination".

The mother pregnant woman does not terminate it. She removed it from her body as is her right. It dies because it cannot sustain itself which is not her fault or responsibility.

If you, somehow, lodge yourself inside my body I will certainly forcibly remove you, as is my moral (and hopefully) legal right. Any neccessary harm this causes you is justified.

The situation of a pregnant woman is no different (other than the fact it's not the fault of the fetus either).

Don't tell others what to do with their bodies, they own it, not you.

If it's not the fault of the fetus, why does the fetus face the punishment? Who else faces death for another's choice and actions?

How is this moral?


It does not face death because of the choice of another. It faces death because it cannot sustain itself.

No person has the obligation to sustain another, that ludicrous. The procedure is fine if no less harmful method is possible. It's like stand your ground to a threspasser on your property (your body).

A baby can't sustain itself neither can someone severely handicapped. Should we not lock parents or caregivers up when they don't help sustain them? They have no obligation, after all.
Paul

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3537
“Personally I think after consciousness has been developed you are talking about a human life. In terms of legality, I think after the first trimester there should be some justifying circumstances such as the jeopardy of the mother's life, or abnormal development of the fetus. “

That sounds about right. But people will believe what they want to believe and it is unlikely any minds will be changed here. However, I suppose that any discussion that stimulates thought, if not reconsideration, is not really a waste of time.

I just find it hard to believe that in the 21st century a law such as Alabama has brought forward could actually become a reality.

So if someone losses consciousness are they no longer human?

Also, you quoted before that "my morality isn't your morality." That's fair. I will say mine is more logically consistent though. No one has given a good counter to this so I'll try again:

A man and woman both agree to have intercourse. Both know that there is a chance the women could get pregnant. The woman always wanted a child but the man does not. He requests an abortion and offers to pay. The woman, having the ultimate right over her body, declines his request.

Now, since it's "her body, her choice" she has the baby.

So, do you think the man should be forced to pay child support? It was a unilateral decision after all. If you do force him to do so, why is that okay? Your morality isn't his morality, after all.  Isn't this an extremest view - forcing people to uphold your morality?

Let's take your points:

1- Losing consciousness is different from developing consciousness.

2- If you claim your morality is more consistent, you must agree that female rape victims who get pregnant must have the child. Do you believe this?

3- Child support is mandatory from both parties. This is completely separate from abortion. If you are the parent of a child, the State requires you to help raise it. End of story.

"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | tap | v | vz | wm

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2943
“Personally I think after consciousness has been developed you are talking about a human life. In terms of legality, I think after the first trimester there should be some justifying circumstances such as the jeopardy of the mother's life, or abnormal development of the fetus. “

That sounds about right. But people will believe what they want to believe and it is unlikely any minds will be changed here. However, I suppose that any discussion that stimulates thought, if not reconsideration, is not really a waste of time.

I just find it hard to believe that in the 21st century a law such as Alabama has brought forward could actually become a reality.

So if someone losses consciousness are they no longer human?

Also, you quoted before that "my morality isn't your morality." That's fair. I will say mine is more logically consistent though. No one has given a good counter to this so I'll try again:

A man and woman both agree to have intercourse. Both know that there is a chance the women could get pregnant. The woman always wanted a child but the man does not. He requests an abortion and offers to pay. The woman, having the ultimate right over her body, declines his request.

Now, since it's "her body, her choice" she has the baby.

So, do you think the man should be forced to pay child support? It was a unilateral decision after all. If you do force him to do so, why is that okay? Your morality isn't his morality, after all.  Isn't this an extremest view - forcing people to uphold your morality?

Let's take your points:

1- Losing consciousness is different from developing consciousness.

2- If you claim your morality is more consistent, you must agree that female rape victims who get pregnant must have the child. Do you believe this?

3- Child support is mandatory from both parties. This is completely separate from abortion. If you are the parent of a child, the State requires you to help raise it. End of story.

1) There is a condition called anencephaly. The research (from what I can find and please correct me if I'm wrong) seems to indicate the baby never has consciousness. They tend to be born and die within a few hours. However, I don't think many would say it's not human.

2) I think a more fair option is this a) taxpayers would possibly help compensate the victim b) the victim would also have the right to have the man put to death or castrated. Human life is valuable but if someone harms another person like this, the punishment should be severe. He is the one that made his own bed (and he'll know the law before he makes his decision). Her life will never be the same and neither should his. I would go a step further too. The mother would also have the right to have a man castrated if he didn't pay child support even if the original relationship was consensual. I think this would drop rape/refusal to pay significantly. I would think most, if not all, women would prefer to have their rapist dead or castrated than the kill their own child (but I can certainly be mistaken).

3) Yes, child support is currently mandatory - I agree. That doesn't mean it's fair. If the fetus is part of the woman's body (which pro-choice people seem to claim) then she should bear the responsibility of what her body does. If she wants full "rights", she bears full responsibility.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 08:17:49 AM by stahleyp »
Paul

Castanza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 455
Quote
I never understand bans on abortion and suicide exist while countries maintain to uphold their constitution above all else. Isn't the right for self-determination in there? Banning abortion and suicide is in direct conflict with that.

How is the discussion here longer than what I just wrote? Oh yeah people are irrational, emotional and inconsistent. Carry on I guess .... :(

Suicide is self harm, where abortion is taking the life of another being. I don't see them on the same playing field. The argument is that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be guaranteed to that unborn child whom was forced into the world.

Abortion is not taking a life. It's removing an unwanted, parasitic and harmful organism from your body. The consequence of this removal may be death sure, but that is not the goal in itself.

Self-determination includes the right to remove things from your body, since the inside of ones body is part of the self.


It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna. You can count the arms on it. Does that mean the woman has 4 arms?  And two unique DNAs???  ::)

If someone eats a worm (or anything else living) does that mean that the worm is no longer its own being just because its location changed? Now eventually the worm would become part of the body as the body digests it...but I don't think it works that way with a baby. By your reasoning, it certainly seems so.

By the way, we're all organisms.  ;)

Lol you didn't understand what I wrote at all. Of course they are biologically separate organisms and logically distinct entities (albeit one relatively much less complex).

I'm saying the inside of the body (in this case the inside of a woman,'s uterus, but any part suffices) is part of a person.Therefore the person (by the right of self determination) may remove things from there. A thing can be anything from foreign objects (eg swallowed pen), to other organisms (eg human fetus, parasitic worm) to parts of the person itself (eg taking out part of your own liver).

It's you body and only you has the right of allowing things to remain inside or not. People should stop telling (or in this case forcing) others what to do with their body.

If they are separate humans, why does the mother have the "right" to terminate it? Does a dictator have the "right" to terminate people living in his country? He certainly believes in "self-determination".

The mother pregnant woman does not terminate it. She removed it from her body as is her right. It dies because it cannot sustain itself which is not her fault or responsibility.

If you, somehow, lodge yourself inside my body I will certainly forcibly remove you, as is my moral (and hopefully) legal right. Any neccessary harm this causes you is justified.

The situation of a pregnant woman is no different (other than the fact it's not the fault of the fetus either).

Don't tell others what to do with their bodies, they own it, not you.

If it's not the fault of the fetus, why does the fetus face the punishment? Who else faces death for another's choice and actions?

How is this moral?


It does not face death because of the choice of another. It faces death because it cannot sustain itself.

No person has the obligation to sustain another, that ludicrous. The procedure is fine if no less harmful method is possible. It's like stand your ground to a threspasser on your property (your body).

Parents have the obligation to sustain the life of their children.

Doctors and medical professionals have the obligation to provide care in the event of an emergency.

Say a mother does not want to pay for formula but refuses to breast feed her new born baby. Is she just exhibiting the right over her own body? And the right over her own personal belongings (money for formula).

Say you come over to my house and somehow lock yourself in a room with no escape. Am I obligated to let you out if I'm aware? Or can I legally just let you in there until you die?

Quote
It does not face death because of the choice of another. It faces death because it cannot sustain itself.

No person has the obligation to sustain another, that ludicrous. The procedure is fine if no less harmful method is possible. It's like stand your ground to a trespasser on your property (your body).

The only thing ludicrous about this is the statement itself. That baby faces death because the mother chose to have sex and is choosing to kill it. Abortion violates the non-aggression principle (NAP) in regards to the baby.

The constitution does extend to "all human life."

wachtwoord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1380
Lol @ "the baby faces death because his mom chose to have sex". That's true for anyone who ever lived, no matter the age they died.

Using agression to protect yourself does not violate the NAP.

I question whether you really try to understand the other point of view. For one you pretended to not understand the difference between something being inside of your body or part of it after my initial response in this thread. Your posts since have only increased my suspicion of that.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"