Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax Message Board

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: LC on May 15, 2019, 11:54:05 AM

Title: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 15, 2019, 11:54:05 AM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-abortion-law-passed-alabama-passes-near-total-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-for-rape-or-incest-2019-05-14/?&ampcf=1

Quote
The legislation -- House Bill 314, "Human Life Protection Act" -- bans all abortions in the state except when "abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk" to the woman, according to the bill's text. It criminalizes the procedure, reclassifying abortion as a Class A felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison for doctors. Attempted abortions will be reclassified as a Class C penalty.
Quote
Alabama's ban is the latest in an onslaught of state-level anti-abortion measures that activists hope will be taken up by the Supreme Court and potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that protects a woman's right to the procedure. Last week, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law the state's so-called "fetal heartbeat" bill, a measure that will prohibit abortions after a heartbeat is detected in an embryo, which is typically five to six weeks into a pregnancy, and before most women know that they're pregnant. The state was the sixth to pass such a law, and the fourth this year alone.
Quote
Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss argued that the ban was still fair to victims of rape and incest because those women would still be allowed to get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant," a statement that garnered a mixture of groans and cackles from the chamber's gallery.

There's a saying that goes something like, "You can't stop women from having abortions, but you can stop women from having safe, legal abortions"

Also, the last quote from that senator has got to be some of the most self-righteous baloney I've read in a while.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 15, 2019, 12:18:40 PM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-abortion-law-passed-alabama-passes-near-total-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-for-rape-or-incest-2019-05-14/?&ampcf=1

Quote
The legislation -- House Bill 314, "Human Life Protection Act" -- bans all abortions in the state except when "abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk" to the woman, according to the bill's text. It criminalizes the procedure, reclassifying abortion as a Class A felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison for doctors. Attempted abortions will be reclassified as a Class C penalty.
Quote
Alabama's ban is the latest in an onslaught of state-level anti-abortion measures that activists hope will be taken up by the Supreme Court and potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that protects a woman's right to the procedure. Last week, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law the state's so-called "fetal heartbeat" bill, a measure that will prohibit abortions after a heartbeat is detected in an embryo, which is typically five to six weeks into a pregnancy, and before most women know that they're pregnant. The state was the sixth to pass such a law, and the fourth this year alone.
Quote
Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss argued that the ban was still fair to victims of rape and incest because those women would still be allowed to get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant," a statement that garnered a mixture of groans and cackles from the chamber's gallery.

There's a saying that goes something like, "You can't stop women from having abortions, but you can stop women from having safe, legal abortions"

Also, the last quote from that senator has got to be some of the most self-righteous baloney I've read in a while.

Let's see how long the ban lasts if women withhold sex in Alabama!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 15, 2019, 12:39:49 PM
As someone who used to be on the fence with abortion (but now more in the pro-life camp), why should a human be allowed to kill another human?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 15, 2019, 12:52:24 PM
As someone who used to be on the fence with abortion (but now more in the pro-life camp), why should a human be allowed to kill another human?

Again, I don't know why this discussion is always decided by men, but get knocked up without consent at 16 by your uncle and ask me the same question!

We murder millions in the name of war, race and creed, including allowing assault rifles in homes, and we decry abortion.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: VersaillesinNY on May 15, 2019, 01:14:37 PM
This is ridiculous. Criminalizing abortion brings Alabama back to the dark ages. Birth control should be a right for all women around the globe. Kudos to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 15, 2019, 01:33:42 PM
As someone who used to be on the fence with abortion (but now more in the pro-life camp), why should a human be allowed to kill another human?

Again, I don't know why this discussion is always decided by men, but get knocked up without consent at 16 by your uncle and ask me the same question!

We murder millions in the name of war, race and creed, including allowing assault rifles in homes, and we decry abortion.  Cheers!

Right, we should not decide this question (or any) by gender. We should have the conversation around logic and values.

So, you'd be okay with abortion being illegal except in case of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger?

I also don't understand that the comment about this discussion is "always being decided by men." That to me is an emotional set up.
For instance, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Logic, reason and values should lead a discussion - not identity.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 15, 2019, 01:37:05 PM
This is ridiculous. Criminalizing abortion brings Alabama back to the dark ages. Birth control should be a right for all women around the globe. Kudos to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

I believe there is a difference in birth control and a human killing another human, isn't there?  ???

I

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SouthernYankee on May 15, 2019, 01:53:03 PM
"including allowing assault rifles in homes"

-Just went to a Shooting Sports Weekend with the Boy Scouts. There were ZERO incidents where a rifle assaulted any of the individuals who attended.

I do know one boy who cut his finger throwing hatchets.



Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 15, 2019, 02:57:34 PM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-abortion-law-passed-alabama-passes-near-total-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-for-rape-or-incest-2019-05-14/?&ampcf=1

Quote
The legislation -- House Bill 314, "Human Life Protection Act" -- bans all abortions in the state except when "abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk" to the woman, according to the bill's text. It criminalizes the procedure, reclassifying abortion as a Class A felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison for doctors. Attempted abortions will be reclassified as a Class C penalty.
Quote
Alabama's ban is the latest in an onslaught of state-level anti-abortion measures that activists hope will be taken up by the Supreme Court and potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that protects a woman's right to the procedure. Last week, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law the state's so-called "fetal heartbeat" bill, a measure that will prohibit abortions after a heartbeat is detected in an embryo, which is typically five to six weeks into a pregnancy, and before most women know that they're pregnant. The state was the sixth to pass such a law, and the fourth this year alone.
Quote
Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss argued that the ban was still fair to victims of rape and incest because those women would still be allowed to get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant," a statement that garnered a mixture of groans and cackles from the chamber's gallery.

There's a saying that goes something like, "You can't stop women from having abortions, but you can stop women from having safe, legal abortions"

Also, the last quote from that senator has got to be some of the most self-righteous baloney I've read in a while.

Let's see how long the ban lasts if women withhold sex in Alabama!  Cheers!

That's quite an objectifying comment regarding both men and women.

[/quote]
Again, I don't know why this discussion is always decided by men, but get knocked up without consent at 16 by your uncle and ask me the same question!

We murder millions in the name of war, race and creed, including allowing assault rifles in homes, and we decry abortion.  Cheers!
[/quote]

The girl would be allowed to have an abortion in that instance. Also what do you believe is so dangerous about "assault rifles"? Fun fact, more people were killed by hammers and dressers than rifles. What do you think the second amendment should cover?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-abortion-law-passed-alabama-passes-near-total-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-for-rape-or-incest-2019-05-14/?&ampcf=1

Quote
The legislation -- House Bill 314, "Human Life Protection Act" -- bans all abortions in the state except when "abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk" to the woman, according to the bill's text. It criminalizes the procedure, reclassifying abortion as a Class A felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison for doctors. Attempted abortions will be reclassified as a Class C penalty.
Quote
Alabama's ban is the latest in an onslaught of state-level anti-abortion measures that activists hope will be taken up by the Supreme Court and potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that protects a woman's right to the procedure. Last week, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law the state's so-called "fetal heartbeat" bill, a measure that will prohibit abortions after a heartbeat is detected in an embryo, which is typically five to six weeks into a pregnancy, and before most women know that they're pregnant. The state was the sixth to pass such a law, and the fourth this year alone.
Quote
Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss argued that the ban was still fair to victims of rape and incest because those women would still be allowed to get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant," a statement that garnered a mixture of groans and cackles from the chamber's gallery.

There's a saying that goes something like, "You can't stop women from having abortions, but you can stop women from having safe, legal abortions"

Also, the last quote from that senator has got to be some of the most self-righteous baloney I've read in a while.

Let me change it for you. "You can't stop women from murdering unborn children, but you can stop them from doing it legally."

legality /== morality
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Tim Eriksen on May 15, 2019, 04:00:51 PM
As someone who used to be on the fence with abortion (but now more in the pro-life camp), why should a human be allowed to kill another human?

Again, I don't know why this discussion is always decided by men, but get knocked up without consent at 16 by your uncle and ask me the same question!

We murder millions in the name of war, race and creed, including allowing assault rifles in homes, and we decry abortion.  Cheers!

Hey it is your message board but this has to be top 10 for worst comments of the year. 

Seriously.  Let's see. Do women have the right to vote in Alabama?  Do they have the right to vote for men?  What gender is the governor?  Are women more pro-life than men?  If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape), why is it an acceptable solution/response to harm (kill) another innocent victim? 

That is not at all to minimize the difficulty of carrying the baby,but your acceptable solution is barbaric.   Do we actually murder millions in the name of war, race and creed?  Do you actually fail to see the difference between killing in war and murder?   Is your logical argument that since we kill in the name of war, race or creed, what is the big deal about killing unborn babies?   Seriously???  Do you know how many are killed each year by assault rifles, race, creed and war in or by the US versus abortion in the US alone?  Do you think the numbers are even remotely close?
     
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 15, 2019, 04:31:16 PM
As someone who used to be on the fence with abortion (but now more in the pro-life camp), why should a human be allowed to kill another human?

Again, I don't know why this discussion is always decided by men, but get knocked up without consent at 16 by your uncle and ask me the same question!

We murder millions in the name of war, race and creed, including allowing assault rifles in homes, and we decry abortion.  Cheers!

Hey it is your message board but this has to be top 10 for worst comments of the year. 

Seriously.  Let's see. Do women have the right to vote in Alabama?  Do they have the right to vote for men?  What gender is the governor?  Are women more pro-life than men?  If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape), why is it an acceptable solution/response to harm (kill) another innocent victim? 

That is not at all to minimize the difficulty of carrying the baby,but your acceptable solution is barbaric.   Do we actually murder millions in the name of war, race and creed?  Do you actually fail to see the difference between killing in war and murder?   Is your logical argument that since we kill in the name of war, race or creed, what is the big deal about killing unborn babies?   Seriously???  Do you know how many are killed each year by assault rifles, race, creed and war in or by the US versus abortion in the US alone?  Do you think the numbers are even remotely close?
   

Only 4 women on the Alabama State Senate...you think that is inclusive in terms of opinion?!  Over half a million people died during the Iraq War...people...living, breathing, working.  And your choice would be to bring in babies that will live in poverty, with parents that aren't prepared to raise them, with little prospect in bettering their lives over time.  The same guys screaming about illegal immigrants and getting them out of here because they are a burden, wants to bring in a million babies a year.  The rights of the living being superceded by the rights of the unborn...and those rights being curtailed mostly by men.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 15, 2019, 04:38:32 PM
The girl would be allowed to have an abortion in that instance. - Castanza

Actually, no they would not.  Only if the mother's life is at risk from an ectopic pregnancy or lethal anomaly.  Rape and incest would not qualify...Democrats introduced an amendment and it was voted down.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 15, 2019, 04:43:43 PM
So, you'd be okay with abortion being illegal except in case of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger? - stahleyP

I'm ok with WOMEN making informed decisions about THEIR body (pregnant or otherwise)...period!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Gregmal on May 15, 2019, 04:50:36 PM
So, you'd be okay with abortion being illegal except in case of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger? - stahleyP

I'm ok with WOMEN making informed decisions about THEIR body (pregnant or otherwise)...period!  Cheers!

We're in agreement with the bolded. If they did the number of abortions would be significantly lower.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Tim Eriksen on May 15, 2019, 04:56:48 PM
As someone who used to be on the fence with abortion (but now more in the pro-life camp), why should a human be allowed to kill another human?

Again, I don't know why this discussion is always decided by men, but get knocked up without consent at 16 by your uncle and ask me the same question!

We murder millions in the name of war, race and creed, including allowing assault rifles in homes, and we decry abortion.  Cheers!

Hey it is your message board but this has to be top 10 for worst comments of the year. 

Seriously.  Let's see. Do women have the right to vote in Alabama?  Do they have the right to vote for men?  What gender is the governor?  Are women more pro-life than men?  If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape), why is it an acceptable solution/response to harm (kill) another innocent victim? 

That is not at all to minimize the difficulty of carrying the baby,but your acceptable solution is barbaric.   Do we actually murder millions in the name of war, race and creed?  Do you actually fail to see the difference between killing in war and murder?   Is your logical argument that since we kill in the name of war, race or creed, what is the big deal about killing unborn babies?   Seriously???  Do you know how many are killed each year by assault rifles, race, creed and war in or by the US versus abortion in the US alone?  Do you think the numbers are even remotely close?
   

Only 4 women on the Alabama State Senate...you think that is inclusive in terms of opinion?!  Over half a million people died during the Iraq War...people...living, breathing, working.  And your choice would be to bring in babies that will live in poverty, with parents that aren't prepared to raise them, with little prospect in bettering their lives over time.  The same guys screaming about illegal immigrants and getting them out of here because they are a burden, wants to bring in a million babies a year.  The rights of the living being superceded by the rights of the unborn...and those rights being curtailed mostly by men.  Cheers!

Please think about what you are saying?  The legislative body represents Alabama, male and female.  Does a legislative body have to include those who are impacted?  Are there any unborn children in the Senate?   How can they vote on children's issues?  Are there illegal immigrants?  how can they vote on illegal immigration?  Your argument is horribly weak.   

Half a million died in the Iraq War over a decade.  640,000 unborn people die per year.  That is ten times the Iraq War.  Ten times.  There is a massive wait for newborn adoptions.  It is an ignorant argument to assume they would live in poverty.  It is untrue.   

Science and religion both understand that the unborn child is a person and living.  It is not superceding of rights.  You don't have the moral right to kill an innocent person.  It is quite simple.   
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 15, 2019, 05:04:42 PM
The girl would be allowed to have an abortion in that instance. - Castanza

Actually, no they would not.  Only if the mother's life is at risk from an ectopic pregnancy or lethal anomaly.  Rape and incest would not qualify...Democrats introduced an amendment and it was voted down.  Cheers!

You're right, I overlooked the rape and incest part. Read the headline wrong. And I agree this should be amended. One big issue is the adoption system in the US is terribly difficult to navigate. It should be much easier to adopt.

And to your comment above. Being alive and living in poverty will always be better than death. This is also ignoring the fact that the poorest living standards in America are often hundreds of times better than the best living conditions in many parts of the world. Maybe we should just start executing some of these children who are held up in orphanages or the ones who are bouncing from foster home to foster home. Maybe the poor kid who lives in Nowheresville  Mississippi who's parents "home school" them, beat them, and are probably preventing them from having any type of quality life.

We can't legislate our way out of the unfairness of life.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: cwericb on May 15, 2019, 05:38:47 PM
Wonder how many of these anti abortion people agree with capital punishment?

How about shooting immigrants at the border?

How many have assault rifles in their homes to protect themselves from those pesky immigrants?

Wonder how people supporting this bill would feel if their sister, mother, wife was raped and impregnated by an illegal? 
 


Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 15, 2019, 05:51:03 PM
Wonder how many of these anti abortion people agree with capital punishment?

How about shooting immigrants at the border?

How many have assault rifles in their homes to protect themselves from those pesky immigrants?

Wonder how people supporting this bill would feel if their sister, mother, wife was raped and impregnated by an illegal?

Assault rifles have been banned since the 80's.

And for the record the 2nd amendment scales with technology. It's the same reason the first amendment covers more than smoke signals and carrier pigeons.

I'm not for capital punishment in most situations. And I'm certainly not for life terms in prison either. Prison and punishment have their place, but are far overdone in the US (drug related crimes especially)

I have no problem with immigrants either. I certainly don't believe they should be shot. But that has nothing to do with immigration standards (which every other country in the world has, many of which are much stricter than the US.)

Here is what's sad. People care more about unborn animals than they do unborn humans. Smash and eagle egg and wind up with 150k fine and 10 years in prison. Abort a baby or advocate for the continual murder of 600k babies a year and receive all types of praise, acknowledgment  etc for your "bravery."

What a time to be alive! 
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 15, 2019, 06:47:15 PM
So, you'd be okay with abortion being illegal except in case of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger? - stahleyP

I'm ok with WOMEN making informed decisions about THEIR body (pregnant or otherwise)...period!  Cheers!

Are you okay with parents making informed decisions about their children (abuse or otherwise)? It's just a difference in stage of life and location.

Further, the other human is not their body. It is in their body - but not the same thing. It has its own DNA, fingers, toes, etc (depending on the part of its development). At least be logically consistent here man!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 15, 2019, 06:56:20 PM
Wonder how many of these anti abortion people agree with capital punishment?

How about shooting immigrants at the border?

How many have assault rifles in their homes to protect themselves from those pesky immigrants?

Wonder how people supporting this bill would feel if their sister, mother, wife was raped and impregnated by an illegal?

I don't have a strong view of capital punishment either way but are you really saying an innocent unborn human deserves the same treatment as a criminal - involuntary termination?

I don't know of anyone, personally, that wants to shoot immigrants. However, if you're pro-choice and feel that it's okay for one person to take another's life, why would you have any problem shooting immigrants?

I know plenty of people who have guns and none of them are trying to protect themselves from immigrants. Not a single one.

I'd personally feel the same about a person whether or not they're an "illegal" if they did that to a loved one.

By the way, what does immigration have to do with abortion?   :o
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Cardboard on May 15, 2019, 07:28:11 PM
Let's start with something easy.

It is illegal to stop life of a premature baby in an incubator or unable to live without the machine. Then why should it be legal to conduct abortion in late pregnancy?

After we have gotten through the logic of this then we may tackle tougher debates.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 15, 2019, 07:32:11 PM
As someone who used to be on the fence with abortion (but now more in the pro-life camp), why should a human be allowed to kill another human?

Again, I don't know why this discussion is always decided by men, but get knocked up without consent at 16 by your uncle and ask me the same question!

We murder millions in the name of war, race and creed, including allowing assault rifles in homes, and we decry abortion.  Cheers!

Hey it is your message board but this has to be top 10 for worst comments of the year. 

Seriously.  Let's see. Do women have the right to vote in Alabama?  Do they have the right to vote for men?  What gender is the governor?  Are women more pro-life than men?  If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape), why is it an acceptable solution/response to harm (kill) another innocent victim? 

That is not at all to minimize the difficulty of carrying the baby,but your acceptable solution is barbaric.   Do we actually murder millions in the name of war, race and creed?  Do you actually fail to see the difference between killing in war and murder?   Is your logical argument that since we kill in the name of war, race or creed, what is the big deal about killing unborn babies?   Seriously???  Do you know how many are killed each year by assault rifles, race, creed and war in or by the US versus abortion in the US alone?  Do you think the numbers are even remotely close?
   

Only 4 women on the Alabama State Senate...you think that is inclusive in terms of opinion?!  Over half a million people died during the Iraq War...people...living, breathing, working.  And your choice would be to bring in babies that will live in poverty, with parents that aren't prepared to raise them, with little prospect in bettering their lives over time.  The same guys screaming about illegal immigrants and getting them out of here because they are a burden, wants to bring in a million babies a year.  The rights of the living being superceded by the rights of the unborn...and those rights being curtailed mostly by men.  Cheers!

Please think about what you are saying?  The legislative body represents Alabama, male and female.  Does a legislative body have to include those who are impacted?  Are there any unborn children in the Senate?   How can they vote on children's issues?  Are there illegal immigrants?  how can they vote on illegal immigration?  Your argument is horribly weak.   

Half a million died in the Iraq War over a decade.  640,000 unborn people die per year.  That is ten times the Iraq War.  Ten times.  There is a massive wait for newborn adoptions.  It is an ignorant argument to assume they would live in poverty.  It is untrue.   

Science and religion both understand that the unborn child is a person and living.  It is not superceding of rights.  You don't have the moral right to kill an innocent person.  It is quite simple.

Your argument is nonsensical!  If a legislative body decides that only 9-year old boys can perform surgery...you believe that decision is ok and representative of the populationís opinion?  The irrational continuation of your thought would be ďthis impacts 9-year old boys, their lives and careers.  Should patients actually have any say when the legislators were elected?!Ē

Of the 640,000 abortions less than 2% occur when the fetus has a chance of survival...24 weeks. 

Science also recognizes patients that are brain dead but have a heart beat.  Are you suggesting any form of palliative care, assisted suicide or mercy killing is completely wrong...including pulling the plug on brain-dead patients?  Cheers!



Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 15, 2019, 07:38:08 PM
Let's start with something easy.

It is illegal to stop life of a premature baby in an incubator or unable to live without the machine. Then why should it be legal to conduct abortion in late pregnancy?

After we have gotten through the logic of this then we may tackle tougher debates.

Cardboard

Thatís not true.  If brain activity ceases they can take the child off of a respirator.

A fetus at 20 weeks cannot survive outside of the womb.  A fetus has a functioning heart after the 12th week of pregnancy...a functioning brain at 16 weeks.  It is not a living, breathing human being until it gets to a viable stage of survival...20 weeks.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: DTEJD1997 on May 15, 2019, 08:25:43 PM
Wonder how many of these anti abortion people agree with capital punishment?

How about shooting immigrants at the border?

How many have assault rifles in their homes to protect themselves from those pesky immigrants?

Wonder how people supporting this bill would feel if their sister, mother, wife was raped and impregnated by an illegal?

Assault rifles have been banned since the 80's.

And for the record the 2nd amendment scales with technology. It's the same reason the first amendment covers more than smoke signals and carrier pigeons.

What a time to be alive!

Assualt rifles are banned?  whut, Whut, WHUT?  I don't think that is the case.  Perhaps in CA perhaps?  They certainly are not banned in TX or MI.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Tim Eriksen on May 15, 2019, 08:46:45 PM

Your argument is nonsensical!  If a legislative body decides that only 9-year old boys can perform surgery...you believe that decision is ok and representative of the populationís opinion?  The irrational continuation of your thought would be ďthis impacts 9-year old boys, their lives and careers.  Should patients actually have any say when the legislators were elected?!Ē

Of the 640,000 abortions less than 2% occur when the fetus has a chance of survival...24 weeks. 

Science also recognizes patients that are brain dead but have a heart beat.  Are you suggesting any form of palliative care, assisted suicide or mercy killing is completely wrong...including pulling the plug on brain-dead patients?  Cheers!

What in the world are you talking about?  I will not waste time trying to have a rational discussion with someone who isn't.  Good day.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 15, 2019, 10:27:45 PM
As someone who used to be on the fence with abortion (but now more in the pro-life camp), why should a human be allowed to kill another human?
So many reasons. We have been killing each other since day 1, for reasons both "just" and "unjust", all subjective to the individual. What makes you right?

Quote
Let me change it for you. "You can't stop women from murdering unborn children, but you can stop them from doing it legally."
We can't stop Americans from murdering Arabs legally, either.

You're talking semantics and it's nonsense.

Quote
If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape), why is it an acceptable solution/response to harm (kill) another innocent victim? 
Why is it acceptable to force a woman to give birth?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Gregmal on May 15, 2019, 10:40:46 PM
As someone who used to be on the fence with abortion (but now more in the pro-life camp), why should a human be allowed to kill another human?
So many reasons. We have been killing each other since day 1, for reasons both "just" and "unjust", all subjective to the individual. What makes you right?

Quote
Let me change it for you. "You can't stop women from murdering unborn children, but you can stop them from doing it legally."
We can't stop Americans from murdering Arabs legally, either.

You're talking semantics and it's nonsense.

Quote
If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape), why is it an acceptable solution/response to harm (kill) another innocent victim? 
Why is it acceptable to force a woman to give birth?

1. Agreed. The rationale changes but it is what it is.

2. A blanket statement like this is nonsensical. Certain things are in our interest. Letting future citizens live, is. Murdering Arabs, is wrong. But if what you mean is going to Afghanistan and cleaning house, that's a different story. If 93/100 people living in a village were known for a fact to be heinous criminals, but your only way to safeguard your community was to wipe out all 100, do you do it? We live in a society were the left has taught us that if there is 1/100 who is possibly OK, we are hateful monsters for making the logical decisions. Screw them and political correctness.

3. No one forced her to take the d*** either. Choices. Consequences. That's life. Live with it.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Gregmal on May 15, 2019, 10:55:16 PM
There is also another very simple solution. If you plan to have an abortion, or disagree so strongly with this law... don't reside in Alabama!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 15, 2019, 11:10:12 PM
Quote
2. A blanket statement like this is nonsensical. Certain things are in our interest. Letting future citizens live, is. Murdering Arabs, is wrong. But if what you mean is going to Afghanistan and cleaning house, that's a different story. If 93/100 people living in a village were known for a fact to be heinous criminals, but your only way to safeguard your community was to wipe out all 100, do you do it? We live in a society were the left has taught us that if there is 1/100 who is possibly OK, we are hateful monsters for making the logical decisions. Screw them and political correctness.
The only blanket statement is Costanza changing my original quip. Try reading the entire context because your response is out of scope.


Quote
3. No one forced her to take the d*** either. Choices. Consequences. That's life. Live with it.
Seriously Greg, I question your intelligence:

If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape)

No one forced her to take the d*** either
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Gregmal on May 15, 2019, 11:19:08 PM
Quote
2. A blanket statement like this is nonsensical. Certain things are in our interest. Letting future citizens live, is. Murdering Arabs, is wrong. But if what you mean is going to Afghanistan and cleaning house, that's a different story. If 93/100 people living in a village were known for a fact to be heinous criminals, but your only way to safeguard your community was to wipe out all 100, do you do it? We live in a society were the left has taught us that if there is 1/100 who is possibly OK, we are hateful monsters for making the logical decisions. Screw them and political correctness.
The only blanket statement is Costanza changing my original quip. Try reading the entire context because your response is out of scope.


Quote
3. No one forced her to take the d*** either. Choices. Consequences. That's life. Live with it.
Seriously Greg, I question your intelligence:

If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape)

No one forced her to take the d*** either

The rape scenario is different but always what the left goes to in order to try and justify killing babies. As in my first example, it is the 1/100 scenario, that the lest uses to justify their position.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 15, 2019, 11:34:38 PM
It is the exact scenario that Tim brought up, which I replied to. I literally quoted him.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 16, 2019, 12:18:16 AM
Quote
2. A blanket statement like this is nonsensical. Certain things are in our interest. Letting future citizens live, is. Murdering Arabs, is wrong. But if what you mean is going to Afghanistan and cleaning house, that's a different story. If 93/100 people living in a village were known for a fact to be heinous criminals, but your only way to safeguard your community was to wipe out all 100, do you do it? We live in a society were the left has taught us that if there is 1/100 who is possibly OK, we are hateful monsters for making the logical decisions. Screw them and political correctness.
The only blanket statement is Costanza changing my original quip. Try reading the entire context because your response is out of scope.


Quote
3. No one forced her to take the d*** either. Choices. Consequences. That's life. Live with it.
Seriously Greg, I question your intelligence:

If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape)

No one forced her to take the d*** either

The rape scenario is different but always what the left goes to in order to try and justify killing babies. As in my first example, it is the 1/100 scenario, that the lest uses to justify their position.

It is estimated that over 2.5M rapes occur each year in the U.S. with 85% not being reported...often they are familial, spousal, close friend, etc.  Even conservative estimates are 1 in 50 girls are raped at one time or another in the U.S.  Before men legislate how women treat their body, maybe these same men should live the life of a girl/woman and experience what they've experienced.  Cheers!

http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 16, 2019, 12:26:43 AM

Your argument is nonsensical!  If a legislative body decides that only 9-year old boys can perform surgery...you believe that decision is ok and representative of the populationís opinion?  The irrational continuation of your thought would be ďthis impacts 9-year old boys, their lives and careers.  Should patients actually have any say when the legislators were elected?!Ē

Of the 640,000 abortions less than 2% occur when the fetus has a chance of survival...24 weeks. 

Science also recognizes patients that are brain dead but have a heart beat.  Are you suggesting any form of palliative care, assisted suicide or mercy killing is completely wrong...including pulling the plug on brain-dead patients?  Cheers!

What in the world are you talking about?  I will not waste time trying to have a rational discussion with someone who isn't.  Good day.

When Pat Robertson thinks a conservative policy and law has gone too far, I'm perfectly fine with you considering me irrational.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/05/15/televangelist-pat-robertson-alabamas-abortion-ban-is-extreme-has-gone-too-far/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.12cd20cf10cf

Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 16, 2019, 01:41:19 AM
Iím curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Spekulatius on May 16, 2019, 03:47:00 AM
Anyone read Freakonomics? There was a clear correlation between allowing abortions and a decrease of crimes rates about 18 years later found. The moral issue aside, it makes sense that unwanted kids have a high probability of becoming criminals.

I think we we also see it widening the social devide - middle class / rich parent teenager (who is much less likely to get into this predicament to begin with )  gets an airplane ticket to a ďmedical vacationĒ, poor teenage gets gets to toughen it out. College admission scandal all over.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Cigarbutt on May 16, 2019, 05:12:12 AM
On the topic of "killing" babies in neonatal intensive care units.

In 1997, there was a landmark article published showing that treatments were actually withheld and withdrawn in many cases. The article showed how a delicate and humane balance had been reached in dealing with very difficult situations. Since then, criteria have been defined/refined in order to offer a decision framework and legal protection for treating teams and parents.

And this goes much further than the braindead child. Criteria include significant brain damage, predictable short term death with suffering and even "no purpose" or "unbearable" situations when the child would survive but with an expected very poor quality of life. In these cases, where parents largely tend to agree with the treating teams, life-sustaining treatments including respiratory support can be withdrawn, which leads to the end of life for that particular baby. When the breathing tube is removed, the path to the end can be a very difficult experience for all involved. Before judging here, perhaps helpful to wonder about the experience if you have not gone through such an event yourself. There exists now a legal framework with case-law that reflects the evolving mindset on the topic. The US uses, on the surface, more stringent criteria but, in practice, the outcome is very similar overall in developed countries. There have been amazing developments in neonatal care but the advances are testing the limits imposed by evolution (if you believe in the evolution theory).

Also helpful to note that if you consult in a fertility clinic, there is a strong possibility that "extra" fertilized eggs will be indirectly or directly "discarded" (the US has very porous regulation in that area).

Also, if you support the use (or use it yourself), one of the backup mechanism for the birth control pill is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg (with its own unique genome and all).

This may be food for thought for those using the absolutist definition of the sanctity of life and having a low threshold to use the murder terminology.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: VersaillesinNY on May 16, 2019, 05:43:37 AM
Anyone read Freakonomics? There was a clear correlation between allowing abortions and a decrease of crimes rates about 18 years later found. The moral issue aside, it makes sense that unwanted kids have a high probability of becoming criminals.

I think we we also see it widening the social devide - middle class / rich parent teenager (who is much less likely to get into this predicament to begin with )  gets an airplane ticket to a ďmedical vacationĒ, poor teenage gets gets to toughen it out. College admission scandal all over.

Agreed with Spekultius, this correlation (legalized abortion & decrease crime rate effect) is well documented. These redneck senators are out of their minds and we are in the year of the lord 2019! Are they also planning on bringing back the Holy Office of the Inquisition?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 16, 2019, 06:11:26 AM
Wonder how many of these anti abortion people agree with capital punishment?

How about shooting immigrants at the border?

How many have assault rifles in their homes to protect themselves from those pesky immigrants?

Wonder how people supporting this bill would feel if their sister, mother, wife was raped and impregnated by an illegal?

Assault rifles have been banned since the 80's.

And for the record the 2nd amendment scales with technology. It's the same reason the first amendment covers more than smoke signals and carrier pigeons.

What a time to be alive!

Assualt rifles are banned?  whut, Whut, WHUT?  I don't think that is the case.  Perhaps in CA perhaps?  They certainly are not banned in TX or MI.

Beginning of time Murder Ban
1911 Sullivan Act
1934 Natiional Firearms Act
1938 Federal Firearms Act
1939 United States v. Miller (ban on sawed off shotguns)
1967 CA mulford Act
1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
1968 Gun Control Act (Banned guns that have no "sporting purpose")(specifically bombs, grenades, mines, and machine guns)
1972 ATF Created
1976 Arms Export Control Act
1986 Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act
1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (Prevent civilian ownership or transfer of machine guns and banned silencers and silencer parts)
1988 Undetectable Firearms Act
1989 CA Assault Weapon Ban
1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act
1993 Brady Handgun Violence Act (Established the Instant Criminal Background Check System) ****
1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Assault weapon ban. Banned 19 "military style or "copy cat"
assault weapons including AR-15's unless lawefully posessed based on Federal law)
1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act
2012 Obama Executive Order Criminal Background Checks
2013 NY Safety Act
[i]2013 California Assault Weapon Ban (Banned Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines. [/b]
Quote Summary: "There are 100mil HC Mags and this would be ineffective in keeping these out of the hands of criminals)[/b][/i]
2013 Conneticut Children's Safety Act
2014 IL Assault Weapon Ban
2014 CO Magazine Ban/Universal Background Check
2014 Obama Executive Order Import Ban of Saiga/AK47Sporting Rifle
2019 Bump Stock ban

There is a handful more between 2014 and 2019 but I honestly get tired of updating the list. Prohibition of any kind has never worked and will never ever work. Notice the quote in the 2013 Cal Assault Weapon ban.

We can't keep drugs out of super max prisons, yet you want to trust the government to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Absurd and ridiculous. All these laws do is hurt law abiding citizens.

Lastly, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon. Anyone who is educated about firearms should know this. AR stands for "Armalite." Assault Rifles or weapons by definition are fully automatic weapons. And they are used to suppress fire of "the enemy" as troops advance. An AR-15 does neither of those things. And machine guns have been banned in the US since the 30's and again in the 80's and then the 90's....

Notice in the list above the absurd number of laws that target handguns. Yet here we are in 2019 and handguns are the most used murder weapon  by about 1000%.

So we can keep on going with laws and regulations, but it wont ever work. It hasn't worked under the strictest governments and dictatorships and it certainly wont work in America.

______________________________________________________________

A band-aid doesn't cure an infection. It simply covers it up. If we want to fix the violence issue in America, we need to change the culture. I think the "ban the guns" and the "gun bro" culture are equally harmful to this country. But they are direct results of each other. We shouldn't be glorifying the use of guns but instead teaching their purpose. They are a very powerful tool that needs to be respected. I think Sweden has a great model. They actually have a very similar per capital "assault rifle" and fire arms in general ownership rate. Yet their shootings are extremely low (basically non-existent). Lots of this is due to education. Children engage in shooting contests and firearm education from a young age. They are raised to view guns as a tool and not a toy. People should become proficient with a firearm. Learn to master it and learn how to use it. But when you're done, store it and lock it away like you would any other tool. Don't go posting selfies all over Facebook showing how "badass" you are with your AR-15. That doesn't promote a safe gun culture. Likewise banning them and fear mongering also doesn't promote a safe gun culture. It simply empowers criminals.

Sorry to sidetrack the conversation (kinda)
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Cardboard on May 16, 2019, 06:13:55 AM
It is amazing that some folks who yell pretty hard on this thread seem so uninformed regarding rape.

Ever heard of next day pills?

Crazy cheap. The government should make these free and educate people on using them. Would save a ton of money and the whole ethical debate.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: VersaillesinNY on May 16, 2019, 06:18:58 AM
Quote
I say it with all my conviction: abortion must remain the exception, the ultimate recourse for situations without a way-out. But how to tolerate it without it losing this character of exceptionalism, without society appearing to encourage it? I would like first of all to make you share a conviction of a woman Ė Iím sorry to do it in front of this Assembly that is almost exclusively made up of men: no woman resorts to abortion light-heartedly. You only have to listen to women. It is always a drama and will always remain a drama. This is why, if the project which is presented to you takes into account the existing de facto situation, if it admits the possibility of a termination of pregnancy, it is to control it and, as much as possible, to dissuade the woman from it. 
Ė  Simone Veil, Holocaust survivor & Ex-Minister Who wrote Franceís Abortion Law - 26/11/1974
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 16, 2019, 06:24:33 AM
Quote
Let me change it for you. "You can't stop women from murdering unborn children, but you can stop them from doing it legally."
We can't stop Americans from murdering Arabs legally, either.

You're talking semantics and it's nonsense.

Quote
If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape), why is it an acceptable solution/response to harm (kill) another innocent victim? 
Why is it acceptable to force a woman to give birth?
[/quote]

1. So you want to justify another killing by pointing out the injustice of another? I don;t agree with the continual wars in the Middle East, but that is completely unrelated to abortion in any way shape or form. But I'm being nonsensical? Again legality /== morality. You should not be allowed to have ownership over another person in a way which allows you to determine life or death. That is quite on par with slavery.

2. Because someones (A person brought into the world by actions of the mother) right to life supersedes someones inconvenience of 9 months (which was brought on by themselves). 
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 16, 2019, 06:29:51 AM
As someone who used to be on the fence with abortion (but now more in the pro-life camp), why should a human be allowed to kill another human?
So many reasons. We have been killing each other since day 1, for reasons both "just" and "unjust", all subjective to the individual. What makes you right?

Quote
Let me change it for you. "You can't stop women from murdering unborn children, but you can stop them from doing it legally."
We can't stop Americans from murdering Arabs legally, either.

You're talking semantics and it's nonsense.

Quote
If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape), why is it an acceptable solution/response to harm (kill) another innocent victim? 
Why is it acceptable to force a woman to give birth?

Isn't everything subjective in your worldview? If everyone is just "making it up as they go along" why hold much of an opinion on anything? In other words, if your conscience isn't anything beyond yourself, why trust it? The only thing that makes me "right" is logical consistency (if everything is subjective). Human life either has value or it doesn't. Let's not act like it does in certain situations but not in others.

Also, you probably should edit your quote a bit. It looks like I said certain things there which I didn't say.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 16, 2019, 06:50:16 AM
Anyone read Freakonomics? There was a clear correlation between allowing abortions and a decrease of crimes rates about 18 years later found. The moral issue aside, it makes sense that unwanted kids have a high probability of becoming criminals.

I think we we also see it widening the social devide - middle class / rich parent teenager (who is much less likely to get into this predicament to begin with )  gets an airplane ticket to a ďmedical vacationĒ, poor teenage gets gets to toughen it out. College admission scandal all over.

Agreed with Spekultius, this correlation (legalized abortion & decrease crime rate effect) is well documented. These redneck senators are out of their minds and we are in the year of the lord 2019! Are they also planning on bringing back the Holy Office of the Inquisition?

That is one reason why I didn't have much of an opinion at one time. I can't argue with the premise and it does make sense.

However, I'd imagine that if people "terminated" first time offenders, the crime rates would drop even more than terminating random humans. So, why not do that too?

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 16, 2019, 07:02:28 AM
Anyone read Freakonomics? There was a clear correlation between allowing abortions and a decrease of crimes rates about 18 years later found. The moral issue aside, it makes sense that unwanted kids have a high probability of becoming criminals.

I think we we also see it widening the social devide - middle class / rich parent teenager (who is much less likely to get into this predicament to begin with )  gets an airplane ticket to a ďmedical vacationĒ, poor teenage gets gets to toughen it out. College admission scandal all over.

Agreed with Spekultius, this correlation (legalized abortion & decrease crime rate effect) is well documented. These redneck senators are out of their minds and we are in the year of the lord 2019! Are they also planning on bringing back the Holy Office of the Inquisition?

That is one reason why I didn't have much of an opinion at one time. I can't argue with the premise and it does make sense.

However, I'd imagine that if people "terminated" first time offenders, the crime rates would drop even more than terminating random humans. So, why not do that too?

I agree, it's a dangerous path to go down when you start to justify death because the future of an individual may not be "bright." Surely life in poverty is better than not having a chance at life?

Also, this correlation that Spek pointed out can be correlated to other things as well. Specifically the degradation of the home life. Fatherless homes etc.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Vish_ram on May 16, 2019, 07:27:56 AM
Politically this will backfire spectacularly on the R.

59% of folks support status quo (Roe v Wade). The distorted democracy of US is going against the general will of the population. 2020 will be interesting.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 16, 2019, 07:43:32 AM
Politically this will backfire spectacularly on the R.

59% of folks support status quo (Roe v Wade). The distorted democracy of US is going against the general will of the population. 2020 will be interesting.

If you believe in the accuracy of polls sure.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Cardboard on May 16, 2019, 07:55:03 AM
"Politically this will backfire spectacularly on the R."

LOL!

Like this was adopted in Pennsylvania or Michigan...

Actually with your anti-American views in the China trade thread, I seriously have to question your loyalty.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Cigarbutt on May 16, 2019, 08:02:56 AM
Politically this will backfire spectacularly on the R.

59% of folks support status quo (Roe v Wade). The distorted democracy of US is going against the general will of the population. 2020 will be interesting.

If you believe in the accuracy of polls sure.
What you believe in, in fact, has a lot to do with conclusions reached.
This issue is a typical example of the growing divide between the 'conservative' and the 'liberal' crowds.
In my humble experience related to what I've seen, people are people and views tend to converge when they become personally involved with tough decisions.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/17/nearly-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal/
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 16, 2019, 08:03:59 AM
It is amazing that some folks who yell pretty hard on this thread seem so uninformed regarding rape.

Ever heard of next day pills?

Crazy cheap. The government should make these free and educate people on using them. Would save a ton of money and the whole ethical debate.

Cardboard

Life starts at conception. It's tantamount to abortion for proponents of these bills.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 16, 2019, 08:14:26 AM
Iím curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

I can't say I agree with a total abortion ban but I'll answer it in a general sense.

What do you mean by "child support"? If you mean payment due to increased financial costs, I'll say no. I've had a couple of kids now and I'll say the financial cost at conception is nothing.

Now, if you mean "child support" as if the man should do more for the woman while pregnant then, yes, it should start at conception (or earlier!). 

Of course, ideally, the two people would be married before they had a child (yes, yes, I know I'm in the Dark Ages!). And part of the agreement is that the husband should support the wife more during pregnancy.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 16, 2019, 08:45:36 AM
Iím curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

I can't say I agree with a total abortion ban but I'll answer it in a general sense.

What do you mean by "child support"? If you mean payment due to increased financial costs, I'll say no. I've had a couple of kids now and I'll say the financial cost at conception is nothing.

Now, if you mean "child support" as if the man should do more for the woman while pregnant then, yes, it should start at conception (or earlier!). 

Of course, ideally, the two people would be married before they had a child (yes, yes, I know I'm in the Dark Ages!). And part of the agreement is that the husband should support the wife more during pregnancy.

We do not live in an ideal world.

Well immediately after conception, the woman is eating for two. There are lots of costs associated with doctors and other pre-natal care. If that woman is working and the she has health conditions which make carrying a baby to term dangerous, she might lose income and have bed rest. Obviously those costs could also increase substantially after birth.

Should we legislate the amount of financial support a man has to provide for a baby from birth too?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Cardboard on May 16, 2019, 08:59:01 AM
"Life starts at conception. It's tantamount to abortion for proponents of these bills."

So basically you are openly supporting killing life?

Cardboard
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 16, 2019, 09:10:01 AM
Iím curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

I can't say I agree with a total abortion ban but I'll answer it in a general sense.

What do you mean by "child support"? If you mean payment due to increased financial costs, I'll say no. I've had a couple of kids now and I'll say the financial cost at conception is nothing.

Now, if you mean "child support" as if the man should do more for the woman while pregnant then, yes, it should start at conception (or earlier!). 

Of course, ideally, the two people would be married before they had a child (yes, yes, I know I'm in the Dark Ages!). And part of the agreement is that the husband should support the wife more during pregnancy.

We do not live in an ideal world.

Well immediately after conception, the woman is eating for two. There are lots of costs associated with doctors and other pre-natal care. If that woman is working and the she has health conditions which make carrying a baby to term dangerous, she might lose income and have bed rest. Obviously those costs could also increase substantially after birth.

Should we legislate the amount of financial support a man has to provide for a baby from birth too?

Your question asked if the man should pay child support at inception. That was my answer.

There are no medical bills at conception. There is no noticeable change in the food eaten or any additional costs. I wasn't like "wow, you're eating more than me! are you pregnant???"

Should the man help pay for her healthcare costs during pregnancy? In my opinion, yes.

There is an action (pregnancy) and as a result that he is is partially responsible for and should help pay.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 16, 2019, 09:16:52 AM
Iím curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

I can't say I agree with a total abortion ban but I'll answer it in a general sense.

What do you mean by "child support"? If you mean payment due to increased financial costs, I'll say no. I've had a couple of kids now and I'll say the financial cost at conception is nothing.

Now, if you mean "child support" as if the man should do more for the woman while pregnant then, yes, it should start at conception (or earlier!). 

Of course, ideally, the two people would be married before they had a child (yes, yes, I know I'm in the Dark Ages!). And part of the agreement is that the husband should support the wife more during pregnancy.

We do not live in an ideal world.

Well immediately after conception, the woman is eating for two. There are lots of costs associated with doctors and other pre-natal care. If that woman is working and the she has health conditions which make carrying a baby to term dangerous, she might lose income and have bed rest. Obviously those costs could also increase substantially after birth.

Should we legislate the amount of financial support a man has to provide for a baby from birth too?

Your question asked if the man should pay child support at inception. That was my answer.

There are no medical bills at conception. There is no noticeable change in the food eaten or any additional costs. I wasn't like "wow, you're eating more than me! are you pregnant???"

Should the man help pay for her healthcare costs during pregnancy? In my opinion, yes.

There is an action (pregnancy) and as a result that he is is partially responsible for and should help pay.

So you think the amount of support a father provides should be legislated like these anti-choice laws?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 16, 2019, 09:19:15 AM
Iím curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

I can't say I agree with a total abortion ban but I'll answer it in a general sense.

What do you mean by "child support"? If you mean payment due to increased financial costs, I'll say no. I've had a couple of kids now and I'll say the financial cost at conception is nothing.

Now, if you mean "child support" as if the man should do more for the woman while pregnant then, yes, it should start at conception (or earlier!). 

Of course, ideally, the two people would be married before they had a child (yes, yes, I know I'm in the Dark Ages!). And part of the agreement is that the husband should support the wife more during pregnancy.

We do not live in an ideal world.

Well immediately after conception, the woman is eating for two. There are lots of costs associated with doctors and other pre-natal care. If that woman is working and the she has health conditions which make carrying a baby to term dangerous, she might lose income and have bed rest. Obviously those costs could also increase substantially after birth.

Should we legislate the amount of financial support a man has to provide for a baby from birth too?

Your question asked if the man should pay child support at inception. That was my answer.

There are no medical bills at conception. There is no noticeable change in the food eaten or any additional costs. I wasn't like "wow, you're eating more than me! are you pregnant???"

Should the man help pay for her healthcare costs during pregnancy? In my opinion, yes.

There is an action (pregnancy) and as a result that he is is partially responsible for and should help pay.

So you think the amount of support a father provides should be legislated like these anti-choice laws?

What do you mean by "legislated like these anti-choice laws?"
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 16, 2019, 09:22:17 AM
Should there be legislation for expectant fathers that they have to set money aside for the care of their unborn children. Surely, if the proponents of these bills care about the lives of these unborn babies, and their caring doesnít end once that child is born.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 16, 2019, 09:25:33 AM
Should there be legislation for expectant fathers that they have to set money aside for the care of their unborn children. Surely, if the proponents of these bills care about the lives of these unborn babies, and their caring doesnít end once that child is born.

I'll say "yes" with the understanding that I might change once I see where you're trying to go. ;)
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 16, 2019, 09:28:44 AM
Should there be legislation for expectant fathers that they have to set money aside for the care of their unborn children. Surely, if the proponents of these bills care about the lives of these unborn babies, and their caring doesnít end once that child is born.

I'll say "yes" with the understanding that I might change once I see where you're trying to go. ;)

So we have to decide how much support should be paid.

Then what is the punishment is for not providing that support? There are already lots of fathers who donít provide child support.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 16, 2019, 09:32:27 AM
Should there be legislation for expectant fathers that they have to set money aside for the care of their unborn children. Surely, if the proponents of these bills care about the lives of these unborn babies, and their caring doesnít end once that child is born.

I'll say "yes" with the understanding that I might change once I see where you're trying to go. ;)

So we have to decide how much support should be paid.

Then what is the punishment is for not providing that support? There are already lots of fathers who donít provide child support.

I think at least 50% of the associated costs should be paid. Possibly more since the women is the one doing the work.

As far as punishment goes, wage garnishment is probably the best choice. Jail wouldn't help the woman but may make men honor their obligations.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 16, 2019, 09:42:29 AM
If they are unemployed or have no wages per se?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Tim Eriksen on May 16, 2019, 09:45:40 AM

Your argument is nonsensical!  If a legislative body decides that only 9-year old boys can perform surgery...you believe that decision is ok and representative of the populationís opinion?  The irrational continuation of your thought would be ďthis impacts 9-year old boys, their lives and careers.  Should patients actually have any say when the legislators were elected?!Ē

Of the 640,000 abortions less than 2% occur when the fetus has a chance of survival...24 weeks. 

Science also recognizes patients that are brain dead but have a heart beat.  Are you suggesting any form of palliative care, assisted suicide or mercy killing is completely wrong...including pulling the plug on brain-dead patients?  Cheers!

What in the world are you talking about?  I will not waste time trying to have a rational discussion with someone who isn't.  Good day.

When Pat Robertson thinks a conservative policy and law has gone too far, I'm perfectly fine with you considering me irrational.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/05/15/televangelist-pat-robertson-alabamas-abortion-ban-is-extreme-has-gone-too-far/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.12cd20cf10cf

Cheers!

Your argument was not at all about the rape an incest inclusion, nor was my response. Your argument was that the majority voting in the Senate were men and thus lacked inclusion and somehow legitimacy.     
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 16, 2019, 09:50:05 AM

1. So you want to justify another killing by pointing out the injustice of another? I don;t agree with the continual wars in the Middle East, but that is completely unrelated to abortion in any way shape or form. But I'm being nonsensical? Again legality /== morality. You should not be allowed to have ownership over another person in a way which allows you to determine life or death. That is quite on par with slavery.

2. Because someones (A person brought into the world by actions of the mother) right to life supersedes someones inconvenience of 9 months (which was brought on by themselves).

1. You changed the subject from my initial statement (that women will get abortions regardless of what this law does - only now they will be unsafe and criminalized) to an argument of morality. So since you're just ignoring my points I suppose I'll do the same.

2. I said this to Greg and I guess I need to say it again, the scope of these comments are Tim's initial post: "If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape)"
Which I have now re-quoted three times.
So when you say "someones inconvenience of 9 months (which was brought on by themselves)", it just indicates you are not really following the argument.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 16, 2019, 09:50:22 AM
If they are unemployed or have no wages per se?


The first is the garnishment wages when a job is found. If we assume that he'll never have a job or money, jail (though I'm not sure if this is really the best) is probably the course of action. This will stop him from impregnating others.

On another note, why would the woman want to be with such a man then?

What ever happened to personal responsibility?


Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Cardboard on May 16, 2019, 09:52:25 AM
SafetyinNumbers or Method as he has multiple aliases is a very cruel individual.

He cannot make the difference between a baby who is about to live on his own and in certain cases could live without his mother and next day pills.

He probably has never seen recordings of a foetus trying to escape from large pliers approaching him or used to crush his head and other bones to allow it to come out easily of her mother's vagina.

In Auschwitz, SS guards were taking away from their mother arms babies and throwing them into dump trucks at the pleasure of Hitler, Himmler and Goerhing.

In thousands of clinics, dead and crushed babies are thrown into overflowing garbages cans at the pleasure of SafetyinNumbers, LC and other Liberals who pretend to want to defend the most vulnerable.

Disgusting!

Cardboard
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 16, 2019, 09:52:28 AM
Isn't everything subjective in your worldview? If everyone is just "making it up as they go along" why hold much of an opinion on anything? In other words, if your conscience isn't anything beyond yourself, why trust it? The only thing that makes me "right" is logical consistency (if everything is subjective). Human life either has value or it doesn't. Let's not act like it does in certain situations but not in others.

Also, you probably should edit your quote a bit. It looks like I said certain things there which I didn't say.
I think there is no black and white answer to "is abortion right or wrong". But as to the topic of moral objectivity, we've had that debate in painstaking detail before, let's spare this thread the detail :D :D

At to the quoted in my post - sorry about that, I was addressing multiple people (you and Castanza) and it's difficult to get all the names in there. Castanza picked up on it however, so I don't think there was any other confusion.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 16, 2019, 09:55:27 AM
It is amazing that some folks who yell pretty hard on this thread seem so uninformed regarding rape.

Ever heard of next day pills?

Crazy cheap. The government should make these free and educate people on using them. Would save a ton of money and the whole ethical debate.

Cardboard
The government should make practically all birth control free, legal, and educate women on their uses. It literally pays for itself many times over.

Never would have thought to see you advocating for such government intervention  ;D
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 16, 2019, 10:01:17 AM
In thousands of clinics, dead and crushed babies are thrown into overflowing garbages cans at the pleasure of SafetyinNumbers, LC and other Liberals who pretend to want to defend the most vulnerable.

Hah! If Alabama really cared about "the most vulnerable" they wouldn't be falling behind in every social category. They'll force you to have a child you can't care for, but then won't provide education (rank: 50th), health care (rank: 46th), economic opportunity (rank: 45th), or safety from crime (rank: 45th).

It's interesting to me that it's the run-down, poorer States which support this crap. And it's usually religiously motivated. And not surprisingly, abortion bans (thanks Cardboard  ::)) is much more heavily supported by the uneducated.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Cardboard on May 16, 2019, 10:08:25 AM
"And not surprisingly, abortion is much more heavily supported by the uneducated."

Sounds right on LC!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 16, 2019, 10:11:42 AM
Haha must have been a Freudian slip. I'll edit it to reflect reality, not your dreams  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 16, 2019, 10:23:26 AM
Haha must have been a Freudian slip. I'll edit it to reflect reality, not your dreams  ;D ;D
SafetyinNumbers or Method as he has multiple aliases is a very cruel individual.

He cannot make the difference between a baby who is about to live on his own and in certain cases could live without his mother and next day pills.

He probably has never seen recordings of a foetus trying to escape from large pliers approaching him or used to crush his head and other bones to allow it to come out easily of her mother's vagina.

In Auschwitz, SS guards were taking away from their mother arms babies and throwing them into dump trucks at the pleasure of Hitler, Himmler and Goerhing.

In thousands of clinics, dead and crushed babies are thrown into overflowing garbages cans at the pleasure of SafetyinNumbers, LC and other Liberals who pretend to want to defend the most vulnerable.

Disgusting!

Cardboard

You have no idea what my views are. I was taking the extreme perspective of antichoice people which is that life begins at conception to which you clearly donít agree with. At some point that becomes a life to you and itís not clear when that is.

To me there is a giant difference between 2 months pregnant and 4 months pregnant or 8 months pregnant. I also think there is a big difference when bringing a baby to term might kill the mother as to what impact that has on when an abortion can be performed.

I think itís a good idea to give women some time to make a decision on pregnancy otherwise they may abuse the morning after pill or abortion. Both of these choices arenít easy emotionally or physically and can have complications. The morning after pill also doesnít necessarily work for women over a certain weight. So I guess with your solution, women over 165 lbs who are raped have to carry the baby to term.

I also think if you are going to punish women with children they do not want through legislation that you should do the same to men in that legislation. I donít want the government deciding what people do what their lives but if thatís what elected officials decide, there at least should be some balance between the parents. I donít think jail is a good solution for fathers who do not meet this requirement because that is society paying to house and feed the father while the mother and baby are not even getting that same benefit. Plus the father is out of the childís life which will may result in other negative effects on society.

As for multiple aliases. An alias I chose when I was in University (Method, 19 years ago) and Safety which I chose when I was allowed to join investment boards again a few years ago. Iím sorry I donít meet your standard for consistent handles across various social media and investing platforms.


Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 16, 2019, 10:41:34 AM
Iím curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

I can't say I agree with a total abortion ban but I'll answer it in a general sense.

What do you mean by "child support"? If you mean payment due to increased financial costs, I'll say no. I've had a couple of kids now and I'll say the financial cost at conception is nothing.

Now, if you mean "child support" as if the man should do more for the woman while pregnant then, yes, it should start at conception (or earlier!). 

Of course, ideally, the two people would be married before they had a child (yes, yes, I know I'm in the Dark Ages!). And part of the agreement is that the husband should support the wife more during pregnancy.

We do not live in an ideal world.

Well immediately after conception, the woman is eating for two. There are lots of costs associated with doctors and other pre-natal care. If that woman is working and the she has health conditions which make carrying a baby to term dangerous, she might lose income and have bed rest. Obviously those costs could also increase substantially after birth.

Should we legislate the amount of financial support a man has to provide for a baby from birth too?

Your question asked if the man should pay child support at inception. That was my answer.

There are no medical bills at conception. There is no noticeable change in the food eaten or any additional costs. I wasn't like "wow, you're eating more than me! are you pregnant???"

Should the man help pay for her healthcare costs during pregnancy? In my opinion, yes.

There is an action (pregnancy) and as a result that he is is partially responsible for and should help pay.

So you think the amount of support a father provides should be legislated like these anti-choice laws?

The current legal system is completely screwed up when it comes to unborn children.

One: if you hit a pregnant woman and kill the baby she is carrying it counts as murder.

Two: that same woman could choose to abort her baby legally.

Three: That same woman can choose to run off and then demand child support legally from the father. Why do only the women have a say in whether or not they are responsible for the child? Then that same woman can go live with another guy (not get married) continue to rape the real father for child support and also be "funded" from their new BF.

Four: Men should have a say in abortion as well. That unborn child is half theirs. IMO, they should be able to take custody of the child if the mother doesn't want it and demand child support from the mother.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 16, 2019, 11:02:55 AM

1. So you want to justify another killing by pointing out the injustice of another? I don;t agree with the continual wars in the Middle East, but that is completely unrelated to abortion in any way shape or form. But I'm being nonsensical? Again legality /== morality. You should not be allowed to have ownership over another person in a way which allows you to determine life or death. That is quite on par with slavery.

2. Because someones (A person brought into the world by actions of the mother) right to life supersedes someones inconvenience of 9 months (which was brought on by themselves).

1. You changed the subject from my initial statement (that women will get abortions regardless of what this law does - only now they will be unsafe and criminalized) to an argument of morality. So since you're just ignoring my points I suppose I'll do the same.

2. I said this to Greg and I guess I need to say it again, the scope of these comments are Tim's initial post: "If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape)"
Which I have now re-quoted three times.
So when you say "someones inconvenience of 9 months (which was brought on by themselves)", it just indicates you are not really following the argument.

People choose to do dumb and unsafe things all the time. Is it really the governments responsibility to prevent people from doing dumb things? NO, because there is no way to enforce that. People choose to buy guns and do evil things, people choose to eat more than the recommended dietary standards, people choose to not wear seat belts, people choose to smoke. If someone wants to try and have an abortion in an unsafe way then that's their own decision.

Now your turn to respond to my statements.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 16, 2019, 12:14:25 PM
Isn't everything subjective in your worldview? If everyone is just "making it up as they go along" why hold much of an opinion on anything? In other words, if your conscience isn't anything beyond yourself, why trust it? The only thing that makes me "right" is logical consistency (if everything is subjective). Human life either has value or it doesn't. Let's not act like it does in certain situations but not in others.

Also, you probably should edit your quote a bit. It looks like I said certain things there which I didn't say.
I think there is no black and white answer to "is abortion right or wrong". But as to the topic of moral objectivity, we've had that debate in painstaking detail before, let's spare this thread the detail :D :D

At to the quoted in my post - sorry about that, I was addressing multiple people (you and Castanza) and it's difficult to get all the names in there. Castanza picked up on it however, so I don't think there was any other confusion.


Is it okay to kill criminals after the first offense? This will, almost certainly, decrease future crime. It will deter others and stop those that are more prone to do so. Is this also not black and white?

Like we talked about in the other thread, if morality is subjective then no moral question is black and white. Everything is okay if the person or society says it is.

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 16, 2019, 01:27:09 PM
Is it okay to kill criminals after the first offense? This will, almost certainly, decrease future crime. It will deter others and stop those that are more prone to do so. Is this also not black and white?
Sometimes we do just that. Mass murder? Yeah probably going to get the death penalty. Stealing a candy bar from the store? Probably not. So no, not black and white.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 16, 2019, 01:52:59 PM
Now your turn to respond to my statements.
Just like mothers who choose to have an abortion, nobody owes you anything.

You've still not addressed the case of rape. Do you think the fetus of rape is entitled to the same rights as any other fetus? Will you be forcing rape victims to carry their pregnancy to term?

As to "people doing dumb things" - women are willing to have abortions, doctors are willing to safely perform them, and yet it's the government stepping in and forcing them to "do dumb things".

If you were truly concerned about reducing or eliminating abortions, you should be supporting accessible birth control, sexual education, etc....all the things which prevent women from needing abortions in the first place. Prohibition just doesn't work, a cursory glance at modern history will tell you that.

As to the legal system, of course it's inconsistent. That is exactly what you would expect from a common law system surrounding a very grey, very divisive issue.

To paternal rights - they end once that baby starts growing in the mother and putting her life in jeopardy. You show me one father whose life was in direct physical danger from the mother's pregnancy and he can have those rights.

The problem with pro-life arguments are they impose a rigid moral structure (designed by a man, no doubt) on a totally grey area. "A man and woman should share all risks and responsibilities 50/50". Well, no. Women get more rights during pregnancy because pregnancy is almost entirely focused on women.

As to when "life starts", when a fetus becomes a person, when it is OK to perform an abortion or not - who are you to say when it is OK? A mother must make an informed choice to the best of her ability. And sometimes it's not the best and it's a mistake, but this is a grey area and it's the best we can do.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 16, 2019, 05:33:41 PM
Quote
Just like mothers who choose to have an abortion, nobody owes you anything.
I'm not even sure what this means?

Quote
You've still not addressed the case of rape. Do you think the fetus of rape is entitled to the same rights as any other fetus? Will you be forcing rape victims to carry their pregnancy to term?
I think rape cases are extremely difficult to deduce. On one end of the spectrum you have a person forced into something against their will in a terrible brutal fashion. On the other end you have a baby which has been forced into the world and has done nothing wrong. I think in most cases I can understand an abortion in this situation. But I wouldn't be against using (tax funds) to compensate the woman if she is willing to carry the baby to term. This compensation would offset medical costs, perhaps education an anything else she has to remove herself from in life while carrying the baby. An adoption should be arranged so that the baby can be taken once born. Again, I'm not sold on this and I think it should be up to her in this circumstance.

Quote
As to "people doing dumb things" - women are willing to have abortions, doctors are willing to safely perform them, and yet it's the government stepping in and forcing them to "do dumb things".

Again, your completely ignoring the baby in this situation. It's a moral issue. That unborn child has rights. Just because someone is willing to do something doesn't mean it should be legal...

Quote
If you were truly concerned about reducing or eliminating abortions, you should be supporting accessible birth control, sexual education, etc....all the things which prevent women from needing abortions in the first place. Prohibition just doesn't work, a cursory glance at modern history will tell you that.
C'mon....we live in the age of the internet. Kids these days are extremely informed. Sex ed hasn't done all that much. There are studies that show both positive and negative results. Birth Control is extremely expressible and cheap. Condoms are readily available as well. Most of these things can be had for free. 

Quote
As to the legal system, of course it's inconsistent. That is exactly what you would expect from a common law system surrounding a very grey, very divisive issue.
It's unfairly and hypocritically grey. And it should be fixed.

Quote
To paternal rights - they end once that baby starts growing in the mother and putting her life in jeopardy. You show me one father whose life was in direct physical danger from the mother's pregnancy and he can have those rights.
You're extremely over emphasizing the risks associated with pregnancy. Less than 6% of women ever have any life threatening conditions during pregnancy. And a fraction of them actually die. My wife works in a NICU and will also tell you this.

Men also have a shorter life span than women and a large driving factor is the fact that we tend to work much more dangerous jobs. Men also are expected to handle the dangerous situations in life while women get a free pass. Hostage situation, fires, sinking boat, break in, robbery, draft, etc etc. For the record I'm not complaining about this. Just pointing it out. Bill Burr has a pretty funny skit on this.

Quote
The problem with pro-life arguments are they impose a rigid moral structure (designed by a man, no doubt) on a totally grey area. "A man and woman should share all risks and responsibilities 50/50". Well, no. Women get more rights during pregnancy because pregnancy is almost entirely focused on women.
A rigid moral structure (Not murdering). That same moral structure exists everywhere else in life. Yet the pro-choice argument want's to make an exception? Also, the idea of not killing another human being was not "designed by a man"

Quote
As to when "life starts", when a fetus becomes a person, when it is OK to perform an abortion or not - who are you to say when it is OK? A mother must make an informed choice to the best of her ability. And sometimes it's not the best and it's a mistake, but this is a grey area and it's the best we can do.

I think it's pretty basic biology. Life starts at conception and it's a human being from beginning to end. That is a fact. That being said I agree tat it would be impossible and ridiculous to enforce that. Personally I think that at 6 weeks (when the heart begins to beat) is when the line should be drawn. It's empirical, testable, repeatable, and observable. It gives adequate time for a pregnancy test (generally 2 weeks after) and still allows for Plan B to be used. I don't think its perfect, but I do think it's the best most reasonable solution.

It's funny to me that liberals claim to be the gatekeepers of science. Yet when rains on their subjective morality or worldview they quickly throw it out the door. Abortion and gender fluidity/homosexuality are two examples. The later of which I couldn't care less about. I just find it funny that people think they can literally do "mind over matter." But instead its "mind over biology, evolution, etc."
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 16, 2019, 09:01:41 PM
Quote
A rigid moral structure (Not murdering). That same moral structure exists everywhere else in life.
But it's not rigid and it does not exist everywhere else, as you admit in the case of rape (and I presume in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy).

So by this, sometimes it's OK to murder the baby. Other times, it's not OK.

And who decides?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 16, 2019, 10:32:11 PM
In thousands of clinics, dead and crushed babies are thrown into overflowing garbages cans at the pleasure of SafetyinNumbers, LC and other Liberals who pretend to want to defend the most vulnerable.

Hah! If Alabama really cared about "the most vulnerable" they wouldn't be falling behind in every social category. They'll force you to have a child you can't care for, but then won't provide education (rank: 50th), health care (rank: 46th), economic opportunity (rank: 45th), or safety from crime (rank: 45th).

It's interesting to me that it's the run-down, poorer States which support this crap. And it's usually religiously motivated. And not surprisingly, abortion bans (thanks Cardboard  ::)) is much more heavily supported by the uneducated.

C'mon LC, as someone else said earlier...being born into poverty is still better than being dead...life is unfair and if your parents are forced to live a life in eternal poverty and despair, possible mental anguish, stress, depression, and maybe looking after a special needs child that doesn't have the social services it needs, so be it.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 16, 2019, 10:38:40 PM


Quote
Just like mothers who choose to have an abortion, nobody owes you anything.
I'm not even sure what this means?

Quote
You've still not addressed the case of rape. Do you think the fetus of rape is entitled to the same rights as any other fetus? Will you be forcing rape victims to carry their pregnancy to term?
I think rape cases are extremely difficult to deduce. On one end of the spectrum you have a person forced into something against their will in a terrible brutal fashion. On the other end you have a baby which has been forced into the world and has done nothing wrong. I think in most cases I can understand an abortion in this situation. But I wouldn't be against using (tax funds) to compensate the woman if she is willing to carry the baby to term. This compensation would offset medical costs, perhaps education an anything else she has to remove herself from in life while carrying the baby. An adoption should be arranged so that the baby can be taken once born. Again, I'm not sold on this and I think it should be up to her in this circumstance.


And in some cases, the law would let a child make a decision on their future after being raped...no informed decision, only that she would have to have the child.  These are the types of people that this law will affect:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/05/16/shannon-dingle-intv-rape-survivor-mxp-vpx.hln
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 17, 2019, 05:58:00 AM
Quote
A rigid moral structure (Not murdering). That same moral structure exists everywhere else in life.
But it's not rigid and it does not exist everywhere else, as you admit in the case of rape (and I presume in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy).

So by this, sometimes it's OK to murder the baby. Other times, it's not OK.

And who decides?

Whether a society has convinced itself that a baby is not a human being thus dehumanizing it and justifying murder is irrelevant. At the root of it there is not a person or society that has ever or does exist in which murder was acceptable. The societies that have partaken in brutal killings (holocaust, Incas, Aztecs, etc) have ALL found ways to justify this either through extreme religious rituals or brainwashing leaders. Point being there always has to be some extreme justification to allow it. But no society has ever thought killing for killing is acceptable. I don't believe morality is subjective. I believe it is objective and it exists outside of religious principles. But societies and cultures can choose to ignore these realities through extreme beliefs and motivations resulting in barbaric action. Societies have generally moved forward away from these extreme views, but sometimes they seem to manifest in clever ways. I can't help but see the correlation between this and what the Spartans did with their newborn children.

In thousands of clinics, dead and crushed babies are thrown into overflowing garbages cans at the pleasure of SafetyinNumbers, LC and other Liberals who pretend to want to defend the most vulnerable.

Hah! If Alabama really cared about "the most vulnerable" they wouldn't be falling behind in every social category. They'll force you to have a child you can't care for, but then won't provide education (rank: 50th), health care (rank: 46th), economic opportunity (rank: 45th), or safety from crime (rank: 45th).

It's interesting to me that it's the run-down, poorer States which support this crap. And it's usually religiously motivated. And not surprisingly, abortion bans (thanks Cardboard  ::)) is much more heavily supported by the uneducated.

C'mon LC, as someone else said earlier...being born into poverty is still better than being dead...life is unfair and if your parents are forced to live a life in eternal poverty and despair, possible mental anguish, stress, depression, and maybe looking after a special needs child that doesn't have the social services it needs, so be it.  Cheers!

I agree, this is absolutely ridiculous. Being born anywhere in the US or a handful of other developed nations is like winning the lottery. I do not understand how you can justify death by saying its better than poverty? I typically don't like to use slippery slope arguments. But if there ever was one to use, that would be it.

The highest educated states and cities also have the highest crime rates. The west coast silicon safe haven also has the highest homeless rates. But I'm not going to sit here and say these situations exist solely because they are liberal "hot zones."

A bit off topic, but I have always found it fascinating that these big tech companies push their political views and agendas very aggressively but how many of them are willing to put headquarters and branches in these "depressed" areas?  Many of these areas are depressed because they've become an economic wasteland as manufacturing has moved out due to automation, or outsourcing. Why doesn't Google, Amazon, or Facebook move in (Even to mid-sized, middle of the road economic cities)? This undoubtedly would bring other companies in, have infrastructure built and boost the area immensely. Granted it would take time for sure. But instead, they do what every other "greedy capitalist" does. They throw a few million at the areas for some publicity and call it a day. Then they continue to bash these areas and drive the public opinion of these areas further and further underground.

 
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 17, 2019, 06:14:33 AM
Is it okay to kill criminals after the first offense? This will, almost certainly, decrease future crime. It will deter others and stop those that are more prone to do so. Is this also not black and white?
Sometimes we do just that. Mass murder? Yeah probably going to get the death penalty. Stealing a candy bar from the store? Probably not. So no, not black and white.

I agree with you here. I worded this very, very poorly. Sorry about that.

This was in reference to the crime reduction benefit of abortion. If the reason to abort is to stop crime, terminating criminals after a first offense would be a better course of action to reduce crime.

I'll try to explain it in a different way.

If society deemed it acceptable to terminate someone after a first offense (either candy bar stealing or mass murder or anything else it felt was undesirable) would you find it okay - knowing that all morality is completely subjective and no one has any more "insight" than anyone else? After all, not everything is black and white.

It's akin to saying that one color is better than another - completely subjective. There is nothing more to it. This is why I find it really hard to understand social justice people who don't believe in a higher level of morality (everyone just makes up their morality as they go along). It's like getting upset if someone is driving a different color car than you. There is nothing deeper to it than that.

So the question is, do you really believe that? ;)
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 17, 2019, 07:50:21 AM


Quote
Just like mothers who choose to have an abortion, nobody owes you anything.
I'm not even sure what this means?

Quote
You've still not addressed the case of rape. Do you think the fetus of rape is entitled to the same rights as any other fetus? Will you be forcing rape victims to carry their pregnancy to term?
I think rape cases are extremely difficult to deduce. On one end of the spectrum you have a person forced into something against their will in a terrible brutal fashion. On the other end you have a baby which has been forced into the world and has done nothing wrong. I think in most cases I can understand an abortion in this situation. But I wouldn't be against using (tax funds) to compensate the woman if she is willing to carry the baby to term. This compensation would offset medical costs, perhaps education an anything else she has to remove herself from in life while carrying the baby. An adoption should be arranged so that the baby can be taken once born. Again, I'm not sold on this and I think it should be up to her in this circumstance.


And in some cases, the law would let a child make a decision on their future after being raped...no informed decision, only that she would have to have the child.  These are the types of people that this law will affect:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/05/16/shannon-dingle-intv-rape-survivor-mxp-vpx.hln

Why do you keep bringing up rape while you're in favor of the choice being only up to the woman (from what I can tell, regardless of the reason)? Do you feel there is ever a time where an abortion isn't okay?

I'm still waiting for an answer to my parent question by the way. ;)

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 17, 2019, 07:55:14 AM
Is it okay to kill criminals after the first offense? This will, almost certainly, decrease future crime. It will deter others and stop those that are more prone to do so. Is this also not black and white?
Sometimes we do just that. Mass murder? Yeah probably going to get the death penalty. Stealing a candy bar from the store? Probably not. So no, not black and white.

I agree with you here. I worded this very, very poorly. Sorry about that.

This was in reference to the crime reduction benefit of abortion. If the reason to abort is to stop crime, terminating criminals after a first offense would be a better course of action to reduce crime.

I'll try to explain it in a different way.

If society deemed it acceptable to terminate someone after a first offense (either candy bar stealing or mass murder or anything else it felt was undesirable) would you find it okay - knowing that all morality is completely subjective and no one has any more "insight" than anyone else? After all, not everything is black and white.

It's akin to saying that one color is better than another - completely subjective. There is nothing more to it. This is why I find it really hard to understand social justice people who don't believe in a higher level of morality (everyone just makes up their morality as they go along). It's like getting upset if someone is driving a different color car than you. There is nothing deeper to it than that.

So the question is, do you really believe that? ;)

I donít think babies become criminals because they were always going to be criminals. They become criminals because they were perhaps unwanted, were abused, were born into a low socioeconomic household, had parents addicted to alcohol or drugs amongst numerous other potential reasons.

Punishing a petty crime like a more serious crime is just an extension of the lack of empathy that those that are antichoice have for women who are trying to be responsible and not bring a baby into those environments.

We will just end up with more income inequality, more crime, less happiness, more welfare spending, more unrest etc....

I wish we lived in an ideal world where everyone had the same intelligence, education and thoughtfulness when it comes to decision making. I think if that was the case, every woman would have access to and would use birth control if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

I have friends who grew up in abusive households and they often develop symptoms of BPD. They make bad decisions because they donít take time to think through the repercussions of their actions. Itís not necessarily because they arenít intelligent but it might be because when they were kids, their motherís boyfriend would scream at them or hit them if they took time to think. They adapted but now they are adults and are still reactive as opposed to proactive.

Access to abortion was an attempt to slow down these cycles. It gives women who suffer from these conditions the time to think about their options and potentially have a chance to improve their socioeconomic status.

Like most of the antichoice people on this thread, I am a champion of personal responsibility and that should be taught and preached on a micro level to everyone but on a macro level there should be some recognition that some people havenít learned that lesson potentially because no one ever taught it to them.

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 17, 2019, 08:35:25 AM
Quote
I have friends who grew up in abusive households and they often develop symptoms of BPD. They make bad decisions because they donít take time to think through the repercussions of their actions. Itís not necessarily because they arenít intelligent but it might be because when they were kids, their motherís boyfriend would scream at them or hit them if they took time to think. They adapted but now they are adults and are still reactive as opposed to proactive.

Access to abortion was an attempt to slow down these cycles. It gives women who suffer from these conditions the time to think about their options and potentially have a chance to improve their socioeconomic status.

Like most of the antichoice people on this thread, I am a champion of personal responsibility and that should be taught and preached on a micro level to everyone but on a macro level there should be some recognition that some people havenít learned that lesson potentially because no one ever taught it to them.

So you think these friends of your would have been better off being aborted so as to avoid the issues they are dealing with today? I sincerely hope that's not what you're saying.

Legislation does NOT change how people think. If these people need help then it needs to be handled at a personal level. Building relationship, being a mentor, etc is the most effective way to fix these issues.

You can't say you champion personal responsibility and advocate for legislation that throws personal responsibility out the window. The issue with Liberal logic is they don't want anyone to suffer anywhere at any point in time. They believe legislation can end all suffering. You can't legislate the unfairness of life away. Sometimes you have to go through Hell to get to heaven. I recognize the spiral affect of situations like the one you mentioned. This speaks to our failures as humans at the communal and personal level. So naturally I can understand how legislation is where people want to turn to fix the issue. But it won't fix the issue. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 17, 2019, 08:52:16 AM
Quote
I have friends who grew up in abusive households and they often develop symptoms of BPD. They make bad decisions because they donít take time to think through the repercussions of their actions. Itís not necessarily because they arenít intelligent but it might be because when they were kids, their motherís boyfriend would scream at them or hit them if they took time to think. They adapted but now they are adults and are still reactive as opposed to proactive.

Access to abortion was an attempt to slow down these cycles. It gives women who suffer from these conditions the time to think about their options and potentially have a chance to improve their socioeconomic status.

Like most of the antichoice people on this thread, I am a champion of personal responsibility and that should be taught and preached on a micro level to everyone but on a macro level there should be some recognition that some people havenít learned that lesson potentially because no one ever taught it to them.

So you think these friends of your would have been better off being aborted so as to avoid the issues they are dealing with today? I sincerely hope that's not what you're saying.

Legislation does NOT change how people think. If these people need help then it needs to be handled at a personal level. Building relationship, being a mentor, etc is the most effective way to fix these issues.

You can't say you champion personal responsibility and advocate for legislation that throws personal responsibility out the window. The issue with Liberal logic is they don't want anyone to suffer anywhere at any point in time. They believe legislation can end all suffering. You can't legislate the unfairness of life away. Sometimes you have to go through Hell to get to heaven. I recognize the spiral affect of situations like the one you mentioned. This speaks to our failures as humans at the communal and personal level. So naturally I can understand how legislation is where people want to turn to fix the issue. But it won't fix the issue. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I know it makes me a cruel individual that I value the life of a grown woman more than a fetus the size of a raspberry and weighing 0.04 ounces.

There is lots of suffering now despite abortion being legal. There will be a lot more without it but I know Christians celebrate suffering. Sometimes you do have to go though Hell to get to Heaven. Unfortunately, so much legislation like these new abortion laws are trying to make sure more people stay in Hell and never make it to Heaven.

You definitely can't legislate unfairness away and you shouldn't try but you can try to help especially when that legislation will improve society overall.

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Cigarbutt on May 17, 2019, 09:05:10 AM
If the US moves towards an anti-abortion stance, the post-decree Romania may be a useful reference:
https://srh.bmj.com/content/39/1/2.full

The decree was deemed a success, with fertility rates getting a short-term boost and resulted, in large part, in what is now called Ceausescu's orphan children.

The US does not closely compare to the then Romania but predictable changes can be expected on top of unintended consequences, such as a large increase in children born into this world without any sort of family. If US policy moves towards limiting or criminalizing abortions, the children problem will need to be addressed, either through a centrally planned and subsidized program or through, if personal responsibility should be handled at the personal level, by putting your name on the list of community surrogate families ready to accept newborns. The community program may include instructions on how to deal with baby withdrawal symptoms:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/infographics/dramatic-increases-in-maternal-opioid-use-neonatal-abstinence-syndrome
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 17, 2019, 09:27:09 AM
If US policy moves towards limiting or criminalizing abortions, the children problem will need to be addressed

If I understand Castanza's position on this, nothing should be done legislatively to solve this problem. Those children will suffer (i.e. go through Hell) and maybe one day they will make it to Heaven. Maybe we will have lots of children begging in the streets like a lot of third world nations. Eventually, they will learn personal responsibility and their problems will be fixed.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 17, 2019, 09:57:02 AM
Is it okay to kill criminals after the first offense? This will, almost certainly, decrease future crime. It will deter others and stop those that are more prone to do so. Is this also not black and white?
Sometimes we do just that. Mass murder? Yeah probably going to get the death penalty. Stealing a candy bar from the store? Probably not. So no, not black and white.

I agree with you here. I worded this very, very poorly. Sorry about that.

This was in reference to the crime reduction benefit of abortion. If the reason to abort is to stop crime, terminating criminals after a first offense would be a better course of action to reduce crime.

I'll try to explain it in a different way.

If society deemed it acceptable to terminate someone after a first offense (either candy bar stealing or mass murder or anything else it felt was undesirable) would you find it okay - knowing that all morality is completely subjective and no one has any more "insight" than anyone else? After all, not everything is black and white.

It's akin to saying that one color is better than another - completely subjective. There is nothing more to it. This is why I find it really hard to understand social justice people who don't believe in a higher level of morality (everyone just makes up their morality as they go along). It's like getting upset if someone is driving a different color car than you. There is nothing deeper to it than that.

So the question is, do you really believe that? ;)

I donít think babies become criminals because they were always going to be criminals. They become criminals because they were perhaps unwanted, were abused, were born into a low socioeconomic household, had parents addicted to alcohol or drugs amongst numerous other potential reasons.

Punishing a petty crime like a more serious crime is just an extension of the lack of empathy that those that are antichoice have for women who are trying to be responsible and not bring a baby into those environments.

We will just end up with more income inequality, more crime, less happiness, more welfare spending, more unrest etc....

I wish we lived in an ideal world where everyone had the same intelligence, education and thoughtfulness when it comes to decision making. I think if that was the case, every woman would have access to and would use birth control if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

I have friends who grew up in abusive households and they often develop symptoms of BPD. They make bad decisions because they donít take time to think through the repercussions of their actions. Itís not necessarily because they arenít intelligent but it might be because when they were kids, their motherís boyfriend would scream at them or hit them if they took time to think. They adapted but now they are adults and are still reactive as opposed to proactive.

Access to abortion was an attempt to slow down these cycles. It gives women who suffer from these conditions the time to think about their options and potentially have a chance to improve their socioeconomic status.

Like most of the antichoice people on this thread, I am a champion of personal responsibility and that should be taught and preached on a micro level to everyone but on a macro level there should be some recognition that some people havenít learned that lesson potentially because no one ever taught it to them.

Empathy? What empathy do you have for the smaller human? Do you really think an innocent human is less valuable than a criminal human?

I'm not advocating for killing people for stealing a candy bar mind you. I believe that all human life has value so that would make me logically inconsistent.

Now, let's get on your slope and think more about this. Be careful though. It's slippery!

They become criminals because they were unwanted, unloved, abused, drugged, etc as children? I find that partially true. I think it increases the odds of those actions. But that's not the full story. There are many stories about people who come from those environments who don't turn out to be criminals and there are plenty of people who come from loving families who do become criminals. I'll say there might be a genetic component to it too: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/64_2_4_0.pdf

So, rather than terminate semi-random unborn humans to reduce crime, it would make much more sense to terminate humans who have already committed an offense. This is beneficial in several ways. They're gone, so they can't commit crime. Their would be children are never born so they don't inherit the genetics or their parenting styles. Other would be criminals see how serious punishment is and that thwarts their desires to commit.

This would in turn, reduce wealth inequality, more happiness, less crime, less welfare spending, less unrest.
 

Granted this is related to eugenics, which Margaret Sanger was a huge fan of. And that's who founded the roots of Planned Parenthood.


Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 17, 2019, 10:19:32 AM
Just some data points to scope the argument:

1) Somewhere between 20 and 25% of all women will have an abortion before the age of 45. Are 1/5 or 1/4 of all women morally bankrupt murderers?

2) About 20% of all reported pregnancies end in miscarriage. Are these women criminally negligent? Guilty of some involuntary manslaughter?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 17, 2019, 10:24:10 AM
I read through the thread and it seems everyone is talking past one another. There are two beliefs:

1. Life begins at inception and interrupting that is murder.

2. It is the woman's choice to have an elective procedure to terminate a pregnancy.

The courts have tried to strike a balance on by giving women a choice up to the point of viability. This compromise doesn't work for those in camp 1 because murder is a binary ethical question.

Instead of the straw man argument back and forth maybe both camps could consider the other side's position. Camp 1: Under what circumstances is abortion acceptable, and what rights does a woman poses to choose what happens to her body? Camp 2: You have to acknowledge the other camps side and assume abortion and murder are equivalent. What support is needed for women and these new babies to make sure there is as little suffering as possible?

 
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 17, 2019, 10:33:31 AM
If US policy moves towards limiting or criminalizing abortions, the children problem will need to be addressed

If I understand Castanza's position on this, nothing should be done legislatively to solve this problem. Those children will suffer (i.e. go through Hell) and maybe one day they will make it to Heaven. Maybe we will have lots of children begging in the streets like a lot of third world nations. Eventually, they will learn personal responsibility and their problems will be fixed.

I mentioned before that abortion legislation needs to go hand in hand with a complete adoption legislation overhaul. I grew up in a family in which I had adopted brothers and sisters (from Russia). My wife and I will most likely adopt kids instead of having our own. But it is extremely expensive and difficult to adopt a child. This needs to change. You are really representing anything I said far out of context.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 17, 2019, 10:45:04 AM
Instead of the straw man argument back and forth maybe both camps could consider the other side's position. Camp 1: Under what circumstances is abortion acceptable, and what rights does a woman poses to choose what happens to her body?

 Camp 2: You have to acknowledge the other camps side and assume abortion and murder are equivalent. What support is needed for women and these new babies to make sure there is as little suffering as possible?

For (1), this is why the rape argument comes up (someone else mentioned "why talk about rape so much?").
If it is a binary decision, rape victims must not interfere in their own pregnancy. Seems absolutely heinous to me.

For (2), I agree there needs to be more support after birth. This is the famous line that pro-life supporters only care about the fetus. Once it's a child - it's not their problem anymore. But even more importantly, we need more preventative education and options. No more of this religious baloney arguing against contraceptives and such.

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 17, 2019, 10:45:47 AM
Quote
I have friends who grew up in abusive households and they often develop symptoms of BPD. They make bad decisions because they donít take time to think through the repercussions of their actions. Itís not necessarily because they arenít intelligent but it might be because when they were kids, their motherís boyfriend would scream at them or hit them if they took time to think. They adapted but now they are adults and are still reactive as opposed to proactive.

Access to abortion was an attempt to slow down these cycles. It gives women who suffer from these conditions the time to think about their options and potentially have a chance to improve their socioeconomic status.

Like most of the antichoice people on this thread, I am a champion of personal responsibility and that should be taught and preached on a micro level to everyone but on a macro level there should be some recognition that some people havenít learned that lesson potentially because no one ever taught it to them.

So you think these friends of your would have been better off being aborted so as to avoid the issues they are dealing with today? I sincerely hope that's not what you're saying.

Legislation does NOT change how people think. If these people need help then it needs to be handled at a personal level. Building relationship, being a mentor, etc is the most effective way to fix these issues.

You can't say you champion personal responsibility and advocate for legislation that throws personal responsibility out the window. The issue with Liberal logic is they don't want anyone to suffer anywhere at any point in time. They believe legislation can end all suffering. You can't legislate the unfairness of life away. Sometimes you have to go through Hell to get to heaven. I recognize the spiral affect of situations like the one you mentioned. This speaks to our failures as humans at the communal and personal level. So naturally I can understand how legislation is where people want to turn to fix the issue. But it won't fix the issue. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I know it makes me a cruel individual that I value the life of a grown woman more than a fetus the size of a raspberry and weighing 0.04 ounces.

There is lots of suffering now despite abortion being legal. There will be a lot more without it but I know Christians celebrate suffering. Sometimes you do have to go though Hell to get to Heaven. Unfortunately, so much legislation like these new abortion laws are trying to make sure more people stay in Hell and never make it to Heaven.

You definitely can't legislate unfairness away and you shouldn't try but you can try to help especially when that legislation will improve society overall.

Christians do not "celebrate suffering." That is a very poor interpretation of what Christians believe. Christians do not believe people should suffer. They simply recognize that suffering exists. Something Christians get wrong a lot if separating politics and religious opinions. It even says clearly in the Bible that we aren't supposed to expect non-Christians to live by our moral standards. This is why I am in favor of gay marriage, legalizing drugs, etc. But for me abortion is a morality issue that exists outside of the religious framework. Murder is wrong across all walks of life in every society. Abortion is not a religious debate at all. 

"You definitely can't legislate unfairness away and you shouldn't try, but you can try to help especially when that legislation will improve society overall."

This statement completely contradicts itself. You cant' and you shouldn't, but lets try it anyways. Making abortion legal sets a precedent that we can legislate away poor decisions and responsibility.

"legislation will improve society overall." Not sure how this can even be argued. In terms of what? Less children in poverty and less potential criminals outweighs kids never having a chance at life? That's ridiculous and preposterous. Being born into poverty (especially in the US) is always better than not having a chance at life at all. Abortion is a band-aid to an infection. Looks good on the surface yet the body continues to rot underneath.

I can think of other things in society that would be fixed by similar actions. Take the homeless for example. They raise crime rates, devalue properties, look bad, entice drug related issues etc. Maybe we should just shift around some more definitions so we can kill them too. I mean, would having no homeless on the street improve society?! It absolutely would.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Cigarbutt on May 17, 2019, 12:01:52 PM
I read through the thread and it seems everyone is talking past one another. There are two beliefs:

1. Life begins at inception and interrupting that is murder.

2. It is the woman's choice to have an elective procedure to terminate a pregnancy.

The courts have tried to strike a balance on by giving women a choice up to the point of viability. This compromise doesn't work for those in camp 1 because murder is a binary ethical question.

Instead of the straw man argument back and forth maybe both camps could consider the other side's position. Camp 1: Under what circumstances is abortion acceptable, and what rights does a woman poses to choose what happens to her body? Camp 2: You have to acknowledge the other camps side and assume abortion and murder are equivalent. What support is needed for women and these new babies to make sure there is as little suffering as possible?
1+
I think this is a very nice way to put perspective.
This is not a question where a consensus will be reached. Looking for some kind of balance.
From Roe vs Wade 1973
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth."
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 17, 2019, 12:30:38 PM
Instead of the straw man argument back and forth maybe both camps could consider the other side's position. Camp 1: Under what circumstances is abortion acceptable, and what rights does a woman poses to choose what happens to her body?

 Camp 2: You have to acknowledge the other camps side and assume abortion and murder are equivalent. What support is needed for women and these new babies to make sure there is as little suffering as possible?

For (1), this is why the rape argument comes up (someone else mentioned "why talk about rape so much?").
If it is a binary decision, rape victims must not interfere in their own pregnancy. Seems absolutely heinous to me.

For (2), I agree there needs to be more support after birth. This is the famous line that pro-life supporters only care about the fetus. Once it's a child - it's not their problem anymore. But even more importantly, we need more preventative education and options. No more of this religious baloney arguing against contraceptives and such.

1) If life doesn't begin at inception, when does it begin? Is this human not living? Is it alive only when it take care of itself? Peter Singer recommended termination even after birth. I want to say up to 28 days from birth? Yet...he doesn't think people should eat animals.

2) If the woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, why stop the right after birth? Shouldn't a father and a mother have the right to terminate someone since they brought the person into the world?

Liberals use rape as an excuse, but it certainly seems like most are okay with abortion regardless of circumstance. I think most prolife (or antichoice as Safety says) think rape is a valid reason.

I agree that contraceptives are a good idea.

I also think the bigger backlash against abortion is partially due to liberals trying to expand abortion "rights" into the third trimester.

So Sanj, safety and lc, when is abortion not an option for you guys?

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 17, 2019, 12:34:22 PM
I read through the thread and it seems everyone is talking past one another. There are two beliefs:

1. Life begins at inception and interrupting that is murder.

2. It is the woman's choice to have an elective procedure to terminate a pregnancy.

The courts have tried to strike a balance on by giving women a choice up to the point of viability. This compromise doesn't work for those in camp 1 because murder is a binary ethical question.

Instead of the straw man argument back and forth maybe both camps could consider the other side's position. Camp 1: Under what circumstances is abortion acceptable, and what rights does a woman poses to choose what happens to her body? Camp 2: You have to acknowledge the other camps side and assume abortion and murder are equivalent. What support is needed for women and these new babies to make sure there is as little suffering as possible?
1+
I think this is a very nice way to put perspective.
This is not a question where a consensus will be reached. Looking for some kind of balance.
From Roe vs Wade 1973
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth."

A lot of folks don't know that the Roe in Roe vs Wade is Norma McCorvey. Even she regretted her decision and became an "antichoicer".

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 17, 2019, 01:23:28 PM
I can think of other things in society that would be fixed by similar actions. Take the homeless for example. They raise crime rates, devalue properties, look bad, entice drug related issues etc. Maybe we should just shift around some more definitions so we can kill them too. I mean, would having no homeless on the street improve society?! It absolutely would.

1) If life doesn't begin at inception, when does it begin? Is this human not living? Is it alive only when it take care of itself? Peter Singer recommended termination even after birth. I want to say up to 28 days from birth? Yet...he doesn't think people should eat animals.

2) If the woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, why stop the right after birth? Shouldn't a father and a mother have the right to terminate someone since they brought the person into the world?

Liberals use rape as an excuse, but it certainly seems like most are okay with abortion regardless of circumstance. I think most prolife (or antichoice as Safety says) think rape is a valid reason.

More straw man arguments.

Liberals use rape as an excuse, but it certainly seems like most are okay with abortion regardless of circumstance. I think most prolife (or antichoice as Safety says) think rape is a valid reason.
 
So abortion in the case of rape is acceptable? So maybe both camps can agree the Alabama law goes a little too far...

Right now, in our society, there is really no incentive for women who are pregnant by mistake to go through with a pregnancy other a moral obligation shared by half (idk not looking at the polls) of the citizens in the country. We are all investors here. The rational economic (time, money, and physical toll) decision for a woman without the means, support, etc is to have an abortion. If you want to change the behavior of people who do not share your moral obligation, you have to appeal to them rationally.   
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 17, 2019, 01:54:17 PM
I can think of other things in society that would be fixed by similar actions. Take the homeless for example. They raise crime rates, devalue properties, look bad, entice drug related issues etc. Maybe we should just shift around some more definitions so we can kill them too. I mean, would having no homeless on the street improve society?! It absolutely would.

1) If life doesn't begin at inception, when does it begin? Is this human not living? Is it alive only when it take care of itself? Peter Singer recommended termination even after birth. I want to say up to 28 days from birth? Yet...he doesn't think people should eat animals.

2) If the woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, why stop the right after birth? Shouldn't a father and a mother have the right to terminate someone since they brought the person into the world?

Liberals use rape as an excuse, but it certainly seems like most are okay with abortion regardless of circumstance. I think most prolife (or antichoice as Safety says) think rape is a valid reason.

More straw man arguments.

Liberals use rape as an excuse, but it certainly seems like most are okay with abortion regardless of circumstance. I think most prolife (or antichoice as Safety says) think rape is a valid reason.
 
So abortion in the case of rape is acceptable? So maybe both camps can agree the Alabama law goes a little too far...

Right now, in our society, there is really no incentive for women who are pregnant by mistake to go through with a pregnancy other a moral obligation shared by half (idk not looking at the polls) of the citizens in the country. We are all investors here. The rational economic (time, money, and physical toll) decision for a woman without the means, support, etc is to have an abortion. If you want to change the behavior of people who do not share your moral obligation, you have to appeal to them rationally.

Tell me more about why you feel this is a "strawman". To me, and perhaps I'm wrong, it's an attempt showing arbitrary bias against a certain set of beliefs. If one believes the mother has the "right" to terminate their child while in the womb, why ever take away that right? The only reason parents don't have the right to terminate their child at any time is do to social norms, yes? So why ever take away their right? Am I being absurd? Possibly but that's what happen when you arbitrarily assign "rights."  Some might even say that allowing a mother to terminate her own pregnancy is absurd.

If we're being "rational" do you agree if our goal is to reduce crime a better solution would be to terminate first time offenders rather than abortion? We're all investors, after all. This certainly seems like a valid "rational economic decision."

Since you're so rational, do you believe in human rights? If so, what evidence do you have to support that view? If you don't believe in human rights, why have a problem with any "violation" of them (since they don't exist anyway)?


Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 17, 2019, 02:49:05 PM


Quote
Just like mothers who choose to have an abortion, nobody owes you anything.
I'm not even sure what this means?

Quote
You've still not addressed the case of rape. Do you think the fetus of rape is entitled to the same rights as any other fetus? Will you be forcing rape victims to carry their pregnancy to term?
I think rape cases are extremely difficult to deduce. On one end of the spectrum you have a person forced into something against their will in a terrible brutal fashion. On the other end you have a baby which has been forced into the world and has done nothing wrong. I think in most cases I can understand an abortion in this situation. But I wouldn't be against using (tax funds) to compensate the woman if she is willing to carry the baby to term. This compensation would offset medical costs, perhaps education an anything else she has to remove herself from in life while carrying the baby. An adoption should be arranged so that the baby can be taken once born. Again, I'm not sold on this and I think it should be up to her in this circumstance.


And in some cases, the law would let a child make a decision on their future after being raped...no informed decision, only that she would have to have the child.  These are the types of people that this law will affect:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/05/16/shannon-dingle-intv-rape-survivor-mxp-vpx.hln

Why do you keep bringing up rape while you're in favor of the choice being only up to the woman (from what I can tell, regardless of the reason)? Do you feel there is ever a time where an abortion isn't okay?

I'm still waiting for an answer to my parent question by the way. ;)

Yes, after the point where a viable fetus could survive outside of the womb with technological assistance...20+ weeks...unless the mother's life is at risk (this should be the mother's choice with informed consent after speaking to a physician). 

Not sure what the parenting question was.  Also, I absolutely love children.  I don't have any of my own, but I cannot imagine my world without my niece and nephew.  But I raised my brother, and I know what it is like to be broke and look after a young kid, wait for him to come home at 2 am, worry about him when he's diagnosed with a disease and the never-ending worry that comes with parenting a child/teenager. 

Before I force some young women into a lifetime commitment over a 5-minute transgression, I believe they should have the opportunity to decide what the outcome of their life will look like...a decision that supercedes the decision to save a fetus that has not taken a breath, felt the sting and pain of life, nor had the opportunity to begin one...for better or worse.  Decisions that affect the masses are always made at the expense of the few.  If this young women chooses to have an abortion now, but creates a better life for herself and then has 3-4 children later in life that have a better chance or outcome, I'm ok with her decision...but it should be hers and only hers.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 17, 2019, 02:52:57 PM
Instead of the straw man argument back and forth maybe both camps could consider the other side's position. Camp 1: Under what circumstances is abortion acceptable, and what rights does a woman poses to choose what happens to her body?

 Camp 2: You have to acknowledge the other camps side and assume abortion and murder are equivalent. What support is needed for women and these new babies to make sure there is as little suffering as possible?

For (1), this is why the rape argument comes up (someone else mentioned "why talk about rape so much?").
If it is a binary decision, rape victims must not interfere in their own pregnancy. Seems absolutely heinous to me.

For (2), I agree there needs to be more support after birth. This is the famous line that pro-life supporters only care about the fetus. Once it's a child - it's not their problem anymore. But even more importantly, we need more preventative education and options. No more of this religious baloney arguing against contraceptives and such.

1) If life doesn't begin at inception, when does it begin? Is this human not living? Is it alive only when it take care of itself? Peter Singer recommended termination even after birth. I want to say up to 28 days from birth? Yet...he doesn't think people should eat animals.

2) If the woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, why stop the right after birth? Shouldn't a father and a mother have the right to terminate someone since they brought the person into the world?

Liberals use rape as an excuse, but it certainly seems like most are okay with abortion regardless of circumstance. I think most prolife (or antichoice as Safety says) think rape is a valid reason.

I agree that contraceptives are a good idea.

I also think the bigger backlash against abortion is partially due to liberals trying to expand abortion "rights" into the third trimester.

So Sanj, safety and lc, when is abortion not an option for you guys?

After the point where a viable fetus could survive outside of the womb with technological assistance...20+ weeks...unless the mother's life is at risk (this should be the mother's choice with informed consent after speaking to a physician).  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 17, 2019, 10:14:23 PM
I can think of other things in society that would be fixed by similar actions. Take the homeless for example. They raise crime rates, devalue properties, look bad, entice drug related issues etc. Maybe we should just shift around some more definitions so we can kill them too. I mean, would having no homeless on the street improve society?! It absolutely would.

1) If life doesn't begin at inception, when does it begin? Is this human not living? Is it alive only when it take care of itself? Peter Singer recommended termination even after birth. I want to say up to 28 days from birth? Yet...he doesn't think people should eat animals.

2) If the woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, why stop the right after birth? Shouldn't a father and a mother have the right to terminate someone since they brought the person into the world?

Liberals use rape as an excuse, but it certainly seems like most are okay with abortion regardless of circumstance. I think most prolife (or antichoice as Safety says) think rape is a valid reason.

More straw man arguments.

Liberals use rape as an excuse, but it certainly seems like most are okay with abortion regardless of circumstance. I think most prolife (or antichoice as Safety says) think rape is a valid reason.
 
So abortion in the case of rape is acceptable? So maybe both camps can agree the Alabama law goes a little too far...

Right now, in our society, there is really no incentive for women who are pregnant by mistake to go through with a pregnancy other a moral obligation shared by half (idk not looking at the polls) of the citizens in the country. We are all investors here. The rational economic (time, money, and physical toll) decision for a woman without the means, support, etc is to have an abortion. If you want to change the behavior of people who do not share your moral obligation, you have to appeal to them rationally.

Tell me more about why you feel this is a "strawman". To me, and perhaps I'm wrong, it's an attempt showing arbitrary bias against a certain set of beliefs. If one believes the mother has the "right" to terminate their child while in the womb, why ever take away that right? The only reason parents don't have the right to terminate their child at any time is do to social norms, yes? So why ever take away their right? Am I being absurd? Possibly but that's what happen when you arbitrarily assign "rights."  Some might even say that allowing a mother to terminate her own pregnancy is absurd.

If we're being "rational" do you agree if our goal is to reduce crime a better solution would be to terminate first time offenders rather than abortion? We're all investors, after all. This certainly seems like a valid "rational economic decision."

Since you're so rational, do you believe in human rights? If so, what evidence do you have to support that view? If you don't believe in human rights, why have a problem with any "violation" of them (since they don't exist anyway)?

The straw man is equating abortion to allowing infanticide. I haven't seen one person in this thread support late term abortion,  so why are you building it up as an argument?  I think all or most of the pro choice people commenting in the thread have since ideas if a limit. 20 weeks in parsads case. The other straw man is saying the liberal agenda is too control crime through abortion and stateing killing first offenders or the homeless would be a more efficient way to control the crime rate.  The initial assumption is incorrect,  the correlation was brought up to ask what would society do to support these unwanted people.  Not that abortion is a means to control crime.

Not sure what you are asking about human rights...

By rational,  I meant what incentive does a woman have to continue an unwanted pregnancy?  Assuming she doesn't share your moral obligation to continue the pregnancy,  you are asking her to give her time, money, and health to carry a baby to term. A rational decision in her case would be to have an abortion. I bet if you gave every woman who had a baby 200k, the number if abortions would plummet.  Putting up barriers to abortion only raises the price (travel, shaming, time, etc) of the abortion vs (time,  health, money) having a baby.  I hear carying a baby to term can be pretty unpleasant which is why women have been seeking abortions for 1000s of years regardless of legality. 

If you actually want to prevent abortion,  you have to make the benefits side of the equation out weight the pregnancy and child birth.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: wachtwoord on May 18, 2019, 04:59:47 AM
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 .... :(
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 18, 2019, 09:44:28 AM
I agree. No one in this thread said they supported late term abortion. However, the sample size is incredibly small. I believe only one person stated when they feel abortions are okay (but correct me if I'm wrong). As for my personal stance, I think the question of rape, incest, mother's life, baby's health and a mother's choice is really complicated and I can't fault a person for that.

The left has already agreed that late term abortions are okay. See legislation in New York as an example. 40 weeks should be considered infanticide...considering the baby could arrive at any moment.

So help me understand why the left favors abortion. From my understanding, the mother has the "right" to do with her body has she sees fit, yes? Fair enough. I'm not arguing that point.

My point is the abortion isn't being done to her body (her body isn't the one being aborted). The other human has their own dna, hands, feet, heart, etc. I don't see how this is even disputable. It's is living and it's human. Is the human viable in all circumstances? No, but that doesn't make it any less human. It's just lower on the development curve. A newborn isn't viable on its own either.

Here we go into a bit of personal philosophy and the way I'm looking at things.

So the question on human rights. If you believe in human rights, why would the unborn human not have them? And why the arbitrary assignment of which humans get human rights?

It was once written:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

So, are human rights unalienable Rights that endowed by their Creator or is it something societies just made up? I don't know the answer to that, definitively, but have my thoughts.

If human rights are endowed by their Creator, its fair to assume that happens at inception (when it officially becomes a human). If the concept is just made up by society, then I see no reason to not kill first time offenders or anything else to "better society" in whatever the popular view is at the time. And a "better society" is also completely subjective. So pro-choice is equal to pro-life. Both are just made up by "feelings."

So, why should the abortion be allowed? Just because the 9 months is an inconvenience? Or the cost is too high? Or because it's a "rational economic decision?" The economic cost of criminals is too high and is also inconvenient (and throw in old people while we're at it!). So why not terminate them?

Since everyone is just making things up as they go along anyway. No one has any more "insight" into moral truth since everything is subjective (without some transcendent insight). There is no reason to trust one's conscience since it's ultimately just an evolutionary instinct and influenced by culture - the same as your opponent's conscience. It doesn't transcend anything. So, why trust it? In fact, if one is completely rational, they would have no opinion on moral issues since there is nothing to base it on.

So much for the unborn's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Let's just throw it out in the garbage.

 
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 18, 2019, 09:54:10 AM
Sanj,


Thanks for the answer. For the parent question, in the beginning of the thread you seemed to express displeasure by saying how abortion is "always decided by men."

By this reasoning, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Obviously, if men shouldn't have moral opinions about abortions, I don't see why it's fair for non-parents to have moral opinions about what parents do.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 18, 2019, 04:58:35 PM
Quote
5-minute transgression
5-minutes?! Speak for yourself Sanjiv  :P

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.

Quote
The straw man is equating abortion to allowing infanticide. I haven't seen one person in this thread support late term abortion,  so why are you building it up as an argument?  I think all or most of the pro choice people commenting in the thread have since ideas if a limit. 20 weeks in parsads case. The other straw man is saying the liberal agenda is too control crime through abortion and stateing killing first offenders or the homeless would be a more efficient way to control the crime rate.  The initial assumption is incorrect,  the correlation was brought up to ask what would society do to support these unwanted people.  Not that abortion is a means to control crime.

LC precisely said that abortion was a better alternative to living in poverty. Sanjiv disagreed on this (correct me if I'm wrong). I made the claim about "killing the homeless" to highlight the ridiculousness in simply "offing" something so we don't have to deal with children in poverty or predicted higher crime rates down the road.

I think the cutoff should be 6 weeks (detected heart beat) for abortion. One, any ban earlier than that would be impossible to enforce. Most miscarriages occur before week 13. To me this signifies "stability" and "sustainability" of the baby (not viability). I think viability outside of the womb is irrelevant. Children are not "viable" on their own as well. Talking with my wife who works with this day in and day out.... (one of the premier NICU's in the country), her and every single one of her colleagues are of the opinion that the "viability 20 week" argument is bullshit. They see babies born all the time that have had been labeled with "terminal conditions, week long life expediencies, all types of terrible conditions and disorders that would leave them crippled for life. Many of these babies go on to live healthy semi-normal lives. She stays in touch with a lot of the families. Medicine (especially pre/neonatal) is not as "clear cut" as one might expect.


Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: cubsfan on May 19, 2019, 06:40:19 AM
Sanj,


Thanks for the answer. For the parent question, in the beginning of the thread you seemed to express displeasure by saying how abortion is "always decided by men."

By this reasoning, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Obviously, if men shouldn't have moral opinions about abortions, I don't see why it's fair for non-parents to have moral opinions about what parents do.

Men should have just as much say on the abortion issue as women. At some point, we are talking about a human life, and you can argue about when
it begins - but someone has to speak up and advocate for that life - man OR woman.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 19, 2019, 07:08:40 AM
 We take comparatively no risk during pregnancy therefore should not have equal say in the matter.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 19, 2019, 07:38:04 AM
We take comparatively no risk during pregnancy therefore should not have equal say in the matter.

Men do have to pay child support though. If they don't agree with the birth, shouldn't they be off the hook?

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 19, 2019, 09:58:37 AM
We take comparatively no risk during pregnancy therefore should not have equal say in the matter.

Men do have to pay child support though. If they don't agree with the birth, shouldn't they be off the hook?
Condoms are a lot cheaper than child support.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 19, 2019, 10:03:53 AM
We take comparatively no risk during pregnancy therefore should not have equal say in the matter.

Men do have to pay child support though. If they don't agree with the birth, shouldn't they be off the hook?
Condoms are a lot cheaper than child support.

Abstinence is cheaper than that. ;)
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 19, 2019, 12:41:42 PM
We take comparatively no risk during pregnancy therefore should not have equal say in the matter.

Men do have to pay child support though. If they don't agree with the birth, shouldn't they be off the hook?
Condoms are a lot cheaper than child support.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement? You think abortion should be allowed because "accidents happen." But only women can choose to not be involved if they are subjected to an "oops" pregnancy. If a man takes precaution and uses a condom, but it breaks and the female gets pregnant, he is on the hook for child support. For 18 years. So long story shot, only women don't have to deal with their "mistakes."

In fact, they can use them to their advantage. Get knocked up, leave the guy and collect child support. Find another BF to live with all while claiming to be a single mother to get that sweet sweet government assistance. And if you don't think this happens you would be very very wrong.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: longinvestor on May 19, 2019, 01:27:22 PM
While we ban abortion outright we should bring back castrations for the guy who raped.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 19, 2019, 01:46:05 PM
While we ban abortion outright we should bring back castrations for the guy who raped.

I agree with that. I would also think it would be appropriate alternative if a father can't/won't pay child support. I bet most would have no problem coming up with the money then.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: wachtwoord on May 19, 2019, 05:05:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 19, 2019, 06:13:45 PM
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.  ;)
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Gregmal on May 19, 2019, 06:19:07 PM
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.

I think this problem would greatly diminish if some of these heathens exercised even a little concern/control removing "things" from their body...
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 19, 2019, 06:49:01 PM
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.

I think this problem would greatly diminish if some of these heathens exercised even a little concern/control removing "things" from their body...

Pretty sure the men are more responsible for  "things" being in the other body.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 19, 2019, 09:40:07 PM
Quote
Do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement? You think abortion should be allowed because "accidents happen." But only women can choose to not be involved if they are subjected to an "oops" pregnancy. If a man takes precaution and uses a condom, but it breaks and the female gets pregnant, he is on the hook for child support. For 18 years. So long story shot, only women don't have to deal with their "mistakes."
Yes, women make the choices when it comes to their bodies (as do men). 

You say women don't have to deal with their "mistakes"? And to put it in quotes too? How arrogant!

Women have to make the very difficult decision to abort the life growing inside them - but you casually dismiss this. You've illustrated the essence of Sanjeev's 2nd post in this topic.

Quote
It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna
This is not the best argument to make to support the pro-life position. Take it to its conclusion: if a fetus is a separate human, it has zero right to be growing inside another human being and should be removed at once.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 19, 2019, 10:21:13 PM
Sanj,


Thanks for the answer. For the parent question, in the beginning of the thread you seemed to express displeasure by saying how abortion is "always decided by men."

By this reasoning, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Obviously, if men shouldn't have moral opinions about abortions, I don't see why it's fair for non-parents to have moral opinions about what parents do.

Hi StahleyP,

You've answered your own question. 

The vast majority of decision makers (legislators, social service authorities, etc) over the welfare of children ARE parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc, and ALL were children once.

From what I understand about human biology, a nearly unanimous majority of the male decision makers (legislators, authorities, etc) making decisions for women, ARE NOT women who can carry a child to term and NEVER were girls.  And that doesn't change even if Catelynn Jenner becomes a Congresswoman or Senator!  :)  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 20, 2019, 04:51:35 AM
Sanj,


Thanks for the answer. For the parent question, in the beginning of the thread you seemed to express displeasure by saying how abortion is "always decided by men."

By this reasoning, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Obviously, if men shouldn't have moral opinions about abortions, I don't see why it's fair for non-parents to have moral opinions about what parents do.

Hi StahleyP,

You've answered your own question. 

The vast majority of decision makers (legislators, social service authorities, etc) over the welfare of children ARE parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc, and ALL were children once.

From what I understand about human biology, a nearly unanimous majority of the male decision makers (legislators, authorities, etc) making decisions for women, ARE NOT women who can carry a child to term and NEVER were girls.  And that doesn't change even if Catelynn Jenner becomes a Congresswoman or Senator!  :)  Cheers!

I believe we were all fetuses though, so that should allow us to have an opinion about what happens to other fetuses. Keep in mind the argument isn't being made to what the woman does to her body (her body isn't being aborted). The abortion process is happening to another human.

I don't see how this isn't a human rights violation. A human is being terminated involuntary.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 20, 2019, 05:18:50 AM
Quote
Do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement? You think abortion should be allowed because "accidents happen." But only women can choose to not be involved if they are subjected to an "oops" pregnancy. If a man takes precaution and uses a condom, but it breaks and the female gets pregnant, he is on the hook for child support. For 18 years. So long story shot, only women don't have to deal with their "mistakes."
Yes, women make the choices when it comes to their bodies (as do men). 

You say women don't have to deal with their "mistakes"? And to put it in quotes too? How arrogant!

Women have to make the very difficult decision to abort the life growing inside them - but you casually dismiss this. You've illustrated the essence of Sanjeev's 2nd post in this topic.

Quote
It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna
This is not the best argument to make to support the pro-life position. Take it to its conclusion: if a fetus is a separate human, it has zero right to be growing inside another human being and should be removed at once.

While I don't think Castanza was being arrogant, even if he were that would not invalidate the argument. I think it's completely fair that if the man doesn't want the child and the mother refuses an abortion (paid for by the man) he should be off the hook for child support. He should not be penalized for a decision made in the heat of the moment (it's a similar argument that Sanj made for abortions but with the genders switched). I'll say that he should also pay for any lost wages due to her missing of work up until the date of abortion or request of abortion (and date of appointment). Some type of payment should be made while she's recovering from the abortion too. He he doesn't pay, we can get the chemicals out.

Now for the part directed towards me, I disagree here. It has every right to be there. It was created there through the actions of its host and her partner. In almost 100% of the cases, the host and partner knew what their actions could cause. And part of him or her has been in there for a long, long time.

Now, if you follow your logic, since every human has "zero right" to grow inside another human, we should be experiencing extinction in the next... 120 years or so. The government should stop all of these rights violations immediately.

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 20, 2019, 05:48:57 AM
Quote
You say women don't have to deal with their "mistakes"? And to put it in quotes too? How arrogant!

How is pointing out the logical fallacies in the current legal apparatus arrogant? "Mistakes" in quotes is referring to the attitude women have about their baby they wish to abort. To them it is a mistake that it exists. Which in reality it is not a mistake. It's a direct function of basic biology that the woman knew full and well about before engaging in sex.


Quote
It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna
This is not the best argument to make to support the pro-life position. Take it to its conclusion: if a fetus is a separate human, it has zero right to be growing inside another human being and should be removed at once.
[/quote]

You're not taking the argument to its conclusion. The conclusion would be why the baby is there in the first place? That baby was forced into the world through a decision made by the woman (whether on purpose or not). When you engage in sex you are entering a social contract (Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau talk about these). You know the risks of intercourse and you know that pregnancy is a potential outcome. You can't just back out a contract when the outcome doesn't favor your desire. You wave your right to make that decision (abortion) when you forced another sentient being into the world. 

Quote
abort the life growing inside them

So now its a life? Which is it?

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 20, 2019, 06:24:10 AM
I'll say that this video really changed the way I looked at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzzfSq2DEc4

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 20, 2019, 06:56:38 AM
Quote
Now, if you follow your logic, since every human has "zero right" to grow inside another human, we should be experiencing extinction in the next... 120 years or so. The government should stop all of these rights violations immediately.
Paul, it wasn't my logic, you made the point by saying these fetuses were "separate humans". I think they are pretty obviously part of the woman's body - if you removed it, it could not survive.

Quote
So now its a life? Which is it?
Castanza, you can call it whatever you want. It's semantics.

To all the points on child support etc. I thought this was addressed? Men and women both have equal say pre-intercourse and post-pregnancy. During these periods both parties are assuming equal risk. But during pregnancy, women have more rights because they're the ones taking all the risk.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 20, 2019, 07:19:57 AM
Quote
Now, if you follow your logic, since every human has "zero right" to grow inside another human, we should be experiencing extinction in the next... 120 years or so. The government should stop all of these rights violations immediately.
Paul, it wasn't my logic, you made the point by saying these fetuses were "separate humans". I think they are pretty obviously part of the woman's body - if you removed it, it could not survive.

Quote
So now its a life? Which is it?
Castanza, you can call it whatever you want. It's semantics.

To all the points on child support etc. I thought this was addressed? Men and women both have equal say pre-intercourse and post-pregnancy. During these periods both parties are assuming equal risk. But during pregnancy, women have more rights because they're the ones taking all the risk.

If you remove someone from life support, they'll die.  Are they not a separate human anymore? Or are they part of the machine?

Also, if they are part of the woman's body, does the woman now have two unique forms of dna? Does she have 4 feet? Or even 6 feet if she has twins? The unborn certainly have feet.

I agree the woman has more rights (the man can't or shouldn't force her to have an abortion). However, her "negligence" of having the baby forces the man into paying for something that he didn't want nor agreed to.

So if the assumption is that the woman has the "right" to have the abortion since she didn't want a child, then the man should have the "right" to not pay child support since he didn't want the child. Both agreed to the initial encounter, yes. But only one agreed to the outcome and as a result should not force the other party to pay for her decision. It was her body, her choice, after all.

At least be fair!
 
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 20, 2019, 07:24:52 AM
Sanj,


Thanks for the answer. For the parent question, in the beginning of the thread you seemed to express displeasure by saying how abortion is "always decided by men."

By this reasoning, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Obviously, if men shouldn't have moral opinions about abortions, I don't see why it's fair for non-parents to have moral opinions about what parents do.

Hi StahleyP,

You've answered your own question. 

The vast majority of decision makers (legislators, social service authorities, etc) over the welfare of children ARE parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc, and ALL were children once.

From what I understand about human biology, a nearly unanimous majority of the male decision makers (legislators, authorities, etc) making decisions for women, ARE NOT women who can carry a child to term and NEVER were girls.  And that doesn't change even if Catelynn Jenner becomes a Congresswoman or Senator!  :)  Cheers!

Sanj,

By the way, do you know who signed the Alabama bill into law? Do you know who signed the New York bill into law?

All these male legislators telling women what to do. The nerve of them!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Spekulatius on May 20, 2019, 05:25:33 PM
Based on the postings here, I assume there are no women on this board.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 20, 2019, 07:41:35 PM
Quote
So if the assumption is that the woman has the "right" to have the abortion since she didn't want a child, then the man should have the "right" to not pay child support since he didn't want the child.
I don't want to pay my mortgage but I dipped the pen so I'm on the hook, ya dig?

Quote
Based on the postings here, I assume there are no women on this board.
They are the fairer (and smarter) sex, after all. But us guys have all the answers, right?  ::) ::)
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Lakesider on May 20, 2019, 09:48:04 PM
Legal abortions reduce crime rates.

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/



Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 20, 2019, 10:24:07 PM
Sanj,


Thanks for the answer. For the parent question, in the beginning of the thread you seemed to express displeasure by saying how abortion is "always decided by men."

By this reasoning, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Obviously, if men shouldn't have moral opinions about abortions, I don't see why it's fair for non-parents to have moral opinions about what parents do.

Hi StahleyP,

You've answered your own question. 

The vast majority of decision makers (legislators, social service authorities, etc) over the welfare of children ARE parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc, and ALL were children once.

From what I understand about human biology, a nearly unanimous majority of the male decision makers (legislators, authorities, etc) making decisions for women, ARE NOT women who can carry a child to term and NEVER were girls.  And that doesn't change even if Catelynn Jenner becomes a Congresswoman or Senator!  :)  Cheers!

Sanj,

By the way, do you know who signed the Alabama bill into law? Do you know who signed the New York bill into law?

All these male legislators telling women what to do. The nerve of them!

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state?  You are going to the Constitution when it comes to guns, and then ignoring it when it comes to women's rights...you can't have your cake and eat it too!  Either you make decisions on a fundamental human and constitutional basis, or you admit that the rules are arbitrary and made to fit whatever the whim of the day is based on who is in power.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: wachtwoord on May 21, 2019, 02:24:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 05:33:58 AM
Legal abortions reduce crime rates.

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

I agree.

If our goal to reduce crime, though, a better course of action is to terminate first offenders. This would dramatically reduce crime rates even more than abortion. And, you're not terminating innocent humans.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 21, 2019, 05:52:52 AM
Quote
Now, if you follow your logic, since every human has "zero right" to grow inside another human, we should be experiencing extinction in the next... 120 years or so. The government should stop all of these rights violations immediately.
Paul, it wasn't my logic, you made the point by saying these fetuses were "separate humans". I think they are pretty obviously part of the woman's body - if you removed it, it could not survive.

Quote
So now its a life? Which is it?
Castanza, you can call it whatever you want. It's semantics.

To all the points on child support etc. I thought this was addressed? Men and women both have equal say pre-intercourse and post-pregnancy. During these periods both parties are assuming equal risk. But during pregnancy, women have more rights because they're the ones taking all the risk.

Life vs not a life is not semantics....

Also, a small child couldn't survive on it's own either.....That excuse is semantics
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 21, 2019, 05:56:55 AM
Sanj,


Thanks for the answer. For the parent question, in the beginning of the thread you seemed to express displeasure by saying how abortion is "always decided by men."

By this reasoning, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Obviously, if men shouldn't have moral opinions about abortions, I don't see why it's fair for non-parents to have moral opinions about what parents do.

Hi StahleyP,

You've answered your own question. 

The vast majority of decision makers (legislators, social service authorities, etc) over the welfare of children ARE parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc, and ALL were children once.

From what I understand about human biology, a nearly unanimous majority of the male decision makers (legislators, authorities, etc) making decisions for women, ARE NOT women who can carry a child to term and NEVER were girls.  And that doesn't change even if Catelynn Jenner becomes a Congresswoman or Senator!  :)  Cheers!

Sanj,

By the way, do you know who signed the Alabama bill into law? Do you know who signed the New York bill into law?

All these male legislators telling women what to do. The nerve of them!

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state?  You are going to the Constitution when it comes to guns, and then ignoring it when it comes to women's rights...you can't have your cake and eat it too!  Either you make decisions on a fundamental human and constitutional basis, or you admit that the rules are arbitrary and made to fit whatever the whim of the day is based on who is in power.  Cheers!

One person may have referenced God but that doesn't mean the majority of people think of abortion as a religious argument. I don't think it is at all. Morality (specifically the right to life) exists outside of every religion and that my friend IS in the constitution. That unborn child is and should be protected by the constitution. Is it not a duty of government to speak for those who cannot? That's the exact reason why we have laws which prevent parents from abusing their children etc. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness applies to that unborn baby.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 21, 2019, 06:00:36 AM
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.

This is unbelievable wrong. You can't compare a biological process to someone ingesting an inanimate object. Apples or oranges.....
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 06:03:25 AM
Sanj,


Thanks for the answer. For the parent question, in the beginning of the thread you seemed to express displeasure by saying how abortion is "always decided by men."

By this reasoning, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Obviously, if men shouldn't have moral opinions about abortions, I don't see why it's fair for non-parents to have moral opinions about what parents do.

Hi StahleyP,

You've answered your own question. 

The vast majority of decision makers (legislators, social service authorities, etc) over the welfare of children ARE parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc, and ALL were children once.

From what I understand about human biology, a nearly unanimous majority of the male decision makers (legislators, authorities, etc) making decisions for women, ARE NOT women who can carry a child to term and NEVER were girls.  And that doesn't change even if Catelynn Jenner becomes a Congresswoman or Senator!  :)  Cheers!

Sanj,

By the way, do you know who signed the Alabama bill into law? Do you know who signed the New York bill into law?

All these male legislators telling women what to do. The nerve of them!

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state?  You are going to the Constitution when it comes to guns, and then ignoring it when it comes to women's rights...you can't have your cake and eat it too!  Either you make decisions on a fundamental human and constitutional basis, or you admit that the rules are arbitrary and made to fit whatever the whim of the day is based on who is in power.  Cheers!

The Constitution does separate church from state but it doesn't separate a person's conscience from their decision making.

Personally, I'm in favor of tighter gun laws. If one values human life, why wouldn't you want to try to protect it through tighter gun laws?







Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: bearprowler6 on May 21, 2019, 06:11:26 AM


She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state?  You are going to the Constitution when it comes to guns, and then ignoring it when it comes to women's rights...you can't have your cake and eat it too!  Either you make decisions on a fundamental human and constitutional basis, or you admit that the rules are arbitrary and made to fit whatever the whim of the day is based on who is in power.  Cheers!
[/quote]

One person may have referenced God but that doesn't mean the majority of people think of abortion as a religious argument. I don't think it is at all. Morality (specifically the right to life) exists outside of every religion and that my friend IS in the constitution. That unborn child is and should be protected by the constitution. Is it not a duty of government to speak for those who cannot? That's the exact reason why we have laws which prevent parents from abusing their children etc. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness applies to that unborn baby.
[/quote]

If you are referencing the laws...then you must look to Roe vs Wade...that is the law of the land decided at the highest court in the land. You may disagree with that judgement as many do however until it is overturned then it applies.

Furthermore, laws do not prevent any action...they may deter...they may punish...but laws do not prevent. So I would have to disagree with your comment that existing laws `prevent`parents from abusing their children.

Your morality is not my morality and no the Constitution does not grant `life, liberty and happiness`to unborn children.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: cwericb on May 21, 2019, 06:34:48 AM

ďIt'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.Ē

ďYour morality is not my morality and no the Constitution does not grant `life, liberty and happiness`to unborn children.Ē


Correct.

Next will these people demand the right to tell you when you can and cannot go to the bathroom? After all, they firmly believe they have a right to control what goes on inside your own body.

Throughout history many wars have been fought because one group of people believed they have the RIGHT to impose their personal beliefs on everybody else. Some people have learned nothing from history. 

What gives someone the right to tell someone else what they can do within their own body? Is it not the height of arrogance for someone to think that they have a right to force someone else to follow their personal beliefs?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 07:02:58 AM
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".
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 07:07:40 AM


She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state?  You are going to the Constitution when it comes to guns, and then ignoring it when it comes to women's rights...you can't have your cake and eat it too!  Either you make decisions on a fundamental human and constitutional basis, or you admit that the rules are arbitrary and made to fit whatever the whim of the day is based on who is in power.  Cheers!

One person may have referenced God but that doesn't mean the majority of people think of abortion as a religious argument. I don't think it is at all. Morality (specifically the right to life) exists outside of every religion and that my friend IS in the constitution. That unborn child is and should be protected by the constitution. Is it not a duty of government to speak for those who cannot? That's the exact reason why we have laws which prevent parents from abusing their children etc. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness applies to that unborn baby.
[/quote]

If you are referencing the laws...then you must look to Roe vs Wade...that is the law of the land decided at the highest court in the land. You may disagree with that judgement as many do however until it is overturned then it applies.

Furthermore, laws do not prevent any action...they may deter...they may punish...but laws do not prevent. So I would have to disagree with your comment that existing laws `prevent`parents from abusing their children.

Your morality is not my morality and no the Constitution does not grant `life, liberty and happiness`to unborn children.
[/quote]

The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Wouldn't it be fair to say that all men and women are "created" at the same time - inception? I don't think a person is "created" at birth since you can certainly see the person's feet kicking or on an ultrasound.

Let's say that your morality is different. Why do you feel yours is superior? What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?


Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 07:11:28 AM

ďIt'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.Ē

ďYour morality is not my morality and no the Constitution does not grant `life, liberty and happiness`to unborn children.Ē


Correct.

Next will these people demand the right to tell you when you can and cannot go to the bathroom? After all, they firmly believe they have a right to control what goes on inside your own body.

Throughout history many wars have been fought because one group of people believed they have the RIGHT to impose their personal beliefs on everybody else. Some people have learned nothing from history. 

What gives someone the right to tell someone else what they can do within their own body? Is it not the height of arrogance for someone to think that they have a right to force someone else to follow their personal beliefs?

If someone is being raped, would you try to stop it? Or at least try to have laws against it? What gives you the right to tell someone else what to do with their own body? Is it not the height of arrogance for someone to think that they have the right to stop someone else from following their personal beliefs?


You might say "I'm stopping them from hurting another human! That's why I'm against it!" Soooo, if that's the case, how is abortion not hurting another human?

By the way, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. I don't think anyone forced her to get pregnant (in most cases)?  ???

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 21, 2019, 07:19:51 AM
Presumably the anti-abortion side of this debate also wants in vitro fertilization made illegal?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Tim Eriksen on May 21, 2019, 07:28:28 AM

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state? 

No it actually does not.  The first Amendment forbids the State from interfering in religion (the Church).  It also forbids the State from establishing a religious test for office.  It does not forbid religion as a factor or the basis for decisions for individuals or elected officials. 
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 07:30:49 AM
Presumably the anti-abortion side of this debate also wants in vitro fertilization made illegal?

Why are you presuming that?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: cwericb on May 21, 2019, 07:48:22 AM
This all comes down to the definition of life.
You believe it to be one way others believe it to be another.
The difference is that anti-abortionists believe they have the right to impose their views on others.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 21, 2019, 07:57:47 AM
Presumably the anti-abortion side of this debate also wants in vitro fertilization made illegal?

Why are you presuming that?

Just to be consistent with the argument of life at conception. They knowingly fertilize (conception) a significant amount of embryos when only trying to get one to take. So they are often killing multiple humans with every procedure. Once the woman is pregnant they might discard the unused embryos or freeze them as long as the parents can afford to pay the storage costs. Either way, this seems inhumane if your premise that human life begins at conception is correct.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 07:59:42 AM
This all comes down to the definition of life.
You believe it to be one way others believe it to be another.
The difference is that anti-abortionists believe they have the right to impose their views on others.

If the fetus isn't alive, why the need to abort it?

If you want to stop a rapist aren't you imposing your views on him?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 08:06:36 AM
Presumably the anti-abortion side of this debate also wants in vitro fertilization made illegal?

Why are you presuming that?

Just to be consistent with the argument of life at conception. They knowingly fertilize (conception) a significant amount of embryos when only trying to get one to take. So they are often killing multiple humans with every procedure. Once the woman is pregnant they might discard the unused embryos or freeze them as long as the parents can afford to pay the storage costs. Either way, this seems inhumane if your premise that human life begins at conception is correct.

Are they actively killing them though? It seems to me that they are created knowing that that some will die but are not actually terminating them. People have kids knowing that those kids will eventually die.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 08:09:39 AM
I believe my argument is rational but if not, please point it out where I go wrong. My goal is for intellectual honesty - not irrationally following previously held beliefs. I hope you all have the same values with that.

Here's my premise:

A fetus is a human. There isn't much reason to doubt this. It has human dna, its parents are human. Humans don't create anything other than humans through intercourse.

If it's human, why does the mother (or anyone else for that matter) have the right to involuntarily terminate it? "Her body, her choice" you might say. Well, if it's her body, why does it have different dna? Does the mother have 4 feet and 20 toes? The more likely answer, to me, seems like it's a separate human. If it's not her body, in what other ways, as a civilized society, do we allow innocent humans to be involuntarily terminated?

Now, if you say that human rights don't exist - that is valid criticism. They may not!

However if you believe in human rights but that they don't extend to a fetus, I'd like to know why. If you say "well, it can't live on its own." I don't think that makes an entity a human since a baby can't do that either and neither can someone on life support and both are considered human. I've not heard any real reasons on why human rights shouldn't extend to all humans.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 21, 2019, 08:12:02 AM
This all comes down to the definition of life.
You believe it to be one way others believe it to be another.
The difference is that anti-abortionists believe they have the right to impose their views on others.

It's not imposing views on others. Its about protecting the rights of individuals who cannot speak for themselves. It's about upholding morality.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 21, 2019, 08:26:26 AM
Presumably the anti-abortion side of this debate also wants in vitro fertilization made illegal?

Why are you presuming that?

Just to be consistent with the argument of life at conception. They knowingly fertilize (conception) a significant amount of embryos when only trying to get one to take. So they are often killing multiple humans with every procedure. Once the woman is pregnant they might discard the unused embryos or freeze them as long as the parents can afford to pay the storage costs. Either way, this seems inhumane if your premise that human life begins at conception is correct.

Are they actively killing them though? It seems to me that they are created knowing that that some will die but are not actually terminating them. People have kids knowing that those kids will eventually die.

They are actively killing them, yes. Definitely when they ďdiscardĒ unwanted embryos. Even freezing them would seem immoral based on your position. Also, when too many take, i.e. when the parents were hoping for one to take and five take instead, they will actively go in and abort up to four of those embryos so the others have a better chance of living and the mother has a better chance of living. Unfortunately, the ones who are aborted donít have a say in the matter which seems contrary to your interpretation of the Constitution.

Also, creating a bunch of humans, knowing certainly most of them will die to hopefully have one live seems immoral on the basis of your position.

Perhaps, this is especially true when there are already so many unwanted babies being born and potentially many more on the way.


Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 08:34:11 AM
Presumably the anti-abortion side of this debate also wants in vitro fertilization made illegal?

Why are you presuming that?

Just to be consistent with the argument of life at conception. They knowingly fertilize (conception) a significant amount of embryos when only trying to get one to take. So they are often killing multiple humans with every procedure. Once the woman is pregnant they might discard the unused embryos or freeze them as long as the parents can afford to pay the storage costs. Either way, this seems inhumane if your premise that human life begins at conception is correct.

Are they actively killing them though? It seems to me that they are created knowing that that some will die but are not actually terminating them. People have kids knowing that those kids will eventually die.

They are actively killing them, yes. Definitely when they ďdiscardĒ unwanted embryos. Even freezing them would seem immoral based on your position. Also, when too many take, i.e. when the parents were hoping for one to take and five take instead, they will actively go in and abort up to four of those embryos so the others have a better chance of living and the mother has a better chance of living. Unfortunately, the ones who are aborted donít have a say in the matter which seems contrary to your interpretation of the Constitution.

Also, creating a bunch of humans, knowing certainly most of them will die to hopefully have one live seems immoral on the basis of your position.

Perhaps, this is especially true when there are already so many unwanted babies being born and potentially many more on the way.

I'll have to think more about this. But perhaps you're right in this regard.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: cwericb on May 21, 2019, 09:37:25 AM
You believe that you should have the ability to put someone in jail if they do something that goes against your personal beliefs - beliefs on which many disagree.

You believe that women have no right to decide what goes on within their own body. And Alabama wants any doctor that intervenes and preforms an abortion should be sent to prison for life.

Those views are very similar to the followers of Islam who believe that anyone insulting the Prophet Muhammad should be stoned and/or put to death.

They are both extremist views.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 09:55:43 AM
You believe that you should have the ability to put someone in jail if they do something that goes against your personal beliefs - beliefs on which many disagree.

You believe that women have no right to decide what goes on within their own body. And Alabama wants any doctor that intervenes and preforms an abortion should be sent to prison for life.

Those views are very similar to the followers of Islam who believe that anyone insulting the Prophet Muhammad should be stoned and/or put to death.

They are both extremist views.

Is rape against your personal beliefs? Do you believe people should go to jail if they violate your personal belief? Many people disagree that rape is wrong. They may say "She never said no, she's my wife, I just know she wanted it. We were both drunk so I'm not sure what happened."

I believe a woman can do anything she wants to her body - as long as she's not harming another human. Do you think another human is being harmed during an abortion? What do you think happens?

See here's the difference:

Like I said, no one is forcing a woman to have the baby. Her body is doing that herself. They are simply trying to stop her from killing another human.

I don't want to minimize the harm or importance of rape but I do want to make sure we are understanding things the same way. Rape in some ways is similar to abortion. You have an victim (fetus, woman) being forced to do something that harms them (abortion, rape) - through no fault or control of their own.

Making abortion illegal is similar to making rape illegal. It is simply stopping someone from doing something that harms another human.

It's not taking away a "right" anymore than it's taking away a man's "right" to do what he wants to do to a woman.

There is a big difference in forcing someone vs not allowing it to happen. Am I looking at this the wrong way?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: cwericb on May 21, 2019, 10:15:06 AM
As I said earlier...

"This all comes down to the definition of life.
You believe it to be one way others believe it to be another.
The difference is that anti-abortionists believe they have the right to impose their views on others."

You believe that "life" begins at conception, many do not agree.
Forcing women to have an unwanted child can have serious consequences for all concerned.

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Tim Eriksen on May 21, 2019, 10:17:52 AM
This all comes down to the definition of life.
Correct.

You believe it to be one way others believe it to be another.
Yes, but not all opinions are equally valid.  You may choose to disregard what religion says, but that doesn't make you correct.  Science has proven that the unborn is a separate being. 

The difference is that anti-abortionists believe they have the right to impose their views on others.
This is not the difference at all.  Your logic has broken down.  We all believe we have the right to impose certain views on others.  That is why rape, murder, theft and drunk driving are illegal.  That is what laws do.  Even municipal codes do that in non-moral areas.  If the unborn is a separate life from the mother, and scientifically it is, then it is also true that the abortionist is imposing their views on the unborn as well.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 21, 2019, 10:23:07 AM
I made the point earlier but I'll make it again because I think it addresses a lot of what you are saying:

There is no perfect solution, this isn't a math problem. It's not as easy as saying, "at the point of conception we have a sovereign human life".

If the fetus is a product of rape, is it OK to abort?
If the fetus is putting the mother's life in jeopardy, is it OK to abort?
If the fetus is severely disabled, misformed, etc., is it OK to abort?

With such a cut-and-dry perspective, you must respond No to all these things. I don't know how you can live with yourself if you really believe that.

So what do we do? We have some partial solution that gets us 90% of the way there. We define a somewhat arbitrary timeframe, have some caveats for cases like the ones I mentioned above, and we leave it up to the mother to make the final decision. It's a pretty good solution to a very complicated issue.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 21, 2019, 10:29:56 AM
I made the point earlier but I'll make it again because I think it addresses a lot of what you are saying:

There is no perfect solution, this isn't a math problem. It's not as easy as saying, "at the point of conception we have a sovereign human life".

If the fetus is a product of rape, is it OK to abort?
If the fetus is putting the mother's life in jeopardy, is it OK to abort?
If the fetus is severely disabled, misformed, etc., is it OK to abort?

With such a cut-and-dry perspective, you must respond No to all these things. I don't know how you can live with yourself if you really believe that.

So what do we do? We have some partial solution that gets us 90% of the way there. We define a somewhat arbitrary timeframe, have some caveats for cases like the ones I mentioned above, and we leave it up to the mother to make the final decision. It's a pretty good solution to a very complicated issue.

Quote
If the fetus is a product of rape, is it OK to abort?
If the fetus is putting the mother's life in jeopardy, is it OK to abort?
If the fetus is severely disabled, misformed, etc., is it OK to abort?

If you believe abortion is necessary in these situations (not saying I disagree),  I'm not understanding how you go leaps and bounds beyond that to say abortion can be done for any reason whatsoever. You're taking extreme examples and using it as a blanket statement to justify other "reasons" for having an abortion.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 21, 2019, 11:11:40 AM
I am only using these extreme examples to illustrate that the logic "a fetus is a human life at t=0" is incorrect.

Therefore we need to come up with a different framework to address this issue.

Currently, the implemented framework is to (generally) provide legal and safe abortions during the first trimester, and institute stipulations on the second and third trimesters.

That seems pretty fair to me.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Tim Eriksen on May 21, 2019, 11:37:14 AM
I am only using these extreme examples to illustrate that the logic "a fetus is a human life at t=0" is incorrect.

Therefore we need to come up with a different framework to address this issue.

Currently, the implemented framework is to (generally) provide legal and safe abortions during the first trimester, and institute stipulations on the second and third trimesters.

That seems pretty fair to me.

that is because you are not the one being killed
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: cwericb on May 21, 2019, 11:43:30 AM
   ďThis is not the difference at all.  Your logic has broken down.  We all believe we have the right to impose certain views on others.  That is why rape, murder, theft and drunk driving are illegal.Ē 

Not my logic that is broken.

The difference is, in part, because rape, murder, theft and drunk driving are all pretty well universally understood to be unacceptable. I donít see millions of rapists and murderers protesting that rape and murder be legalized and millions more agreeing with them.

Furthermore those are crimes against individual citizens - not unborn fetuses. Laws against abortion are a violation of an individualís rights. Now you may believe that a fetus is a live human being entitled to all the rights of an individual. Many others disagree.

The majority of those in the anti abortionist camp have been brought up Roman Catholic and the movement is widely supported by the Church. One might suggest that given the history of the Church it does not in any way give it a moral high ground to dictate morality to others.


Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 21, 2019, 12:06:52 PM
that is because you are not the one being killed
So you're OK telling rape victims they must give birth to that fetus?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Tim Eriksen on May 21, 2019, 01:17:56 PM
that is because you are not the one being killed
So you're OK telling rape victims they must give birth to that fetus?

I am completely comfortable having laws that forbid the killing of an innocent human being.  Rape is sick but so is the intentional taking of an innocent human being.  You may think my response is cold, but I would contend the opposite is the case - supporting the killing of an innocent baby is cold.)  I would gladly pay higher taxes or voluntary give to help them emotionally, financially, etc.

Let's be clear, this is not the real issue for those who are pro-abortion rights or they would agree to accept an abortion ban except in the cases of rape and incest (And health of the mother).  The truth for nearly all is they want abortion for any reason the mother chooses, and for many, whenever the mother chooses.       

So you're okay with killing innocent unborn children because their mother doesn't want them, thinks they would be inconvenient, or may have a disability?  Why not a newborn?   
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Tim Eriksen on May 21, 2019, 01:37:00 PM
   ďThis is not the difference at all.  Your logic has broken down.  We all believe we have the right to impose certain views on others.  That is why rape, murder, theft and drunk driving are illegal.Ē 

Not my logic that is broken.

The difference is, in part, because rape, murder, theft and drunk driving are all pretty well universally understood to be unacceptable. I donít see millions of rapists and murderers protesting that rape and murder be legalized and millions more agreeing with them.

Furthermore those are crimes against individual citizens - not unborn fetuses. Laws against abortion are a violation of an individualís rights. Now you may believe that a fetus is a live human being entitled to all the rights of an individual. Many others disagree.

The majority of those in the anti abortionist camp have been brought up Roman Catholic and the movement is widely supported by the Church. One might suggest that given the history of the Church it does not in any way give it a moral high ground to dictate morality to others.

You cut off the rest of the quote and you failed to grasp what was written.  Your logic broke down.  You were right on the definition of life being central.  But then you had a break down and your conclusion was pro-life people want to impose their values on others, with the implication that pro-choice do not.  I simply pointed out that pro-abortion rights people are also imposing their values on others too (the unborn are living and are human).  Thus your third point failed to capture the essential difference between the two positions.

Obviously you have some other misunderstandings as well.   I would suggest you do some research on the make up of the pro life community.  It is not majority Catholic.       
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 01:52:43 PM
   ďThis is not the difference at all.  Your logic has broken down.  We all believe we have the right to impose certain views on others.  That is why rape, murder, theft and drunk driving are illegal.Ē 

Not my logic that is broken.

The difference is, in part, because rape, murder, theft and drunk driving are all pretty well universally understood to be unacceptable. I donít see millions of rapists and murderers protesting that rape and murder be legalized and millions more agreeing with them.

Furthermore those are crimes against individual citizens - not unborn fetuses. Laws against abortion are a violation of an individualís rights. Now you may believe that a fetus is a live human being entitled to all the rights of an individual. Many others disagree.

The majority of those in the anti abortionist camp have been brought up Roman Catholic and the movement is widely supported by the Church. One might suggest that given the history of the Church it does not in any way give it a moral high ground to dictate morality to others.

First, when do you feel abortion should be illegal? lc, safety, I'd like for you guys to answer, too, please.

What's your definition of life? Like I said, if the fetus isn't living...I don't know what it's doing then. I see no reason to abort if it's not living.

Also, why do you feel laws against abortion are against a woman's right? Does the mother have the "right" to kill her 1 day old baby? It's the same DNA, same human as she had before - just older. So if you give the mother the right to terminate her child, what gives you the ability to take away that same "right" later on? We're talking about a change in location here, after all.

If you give her the right and ability to do it once, why are you forcing your views and values on her at a later date to not terminate the child? She brought it into the world. Why should she not be able to take it out of the world? Look at all these men trying to tell women what they can and can't do!

Since the baby is just part of her body (as LC and watcht seem to think), why are you telling her what to do with her body even if this body part is 5 years old?

I'm not Catholic, for what it's worth. But, I do try to be fair and rational. ;)
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 21, 2019, 02:11:23 PM
I am only using these extreme examples to illustrate that the logic "a fetus is a human life at t=0" is incorrect.

Therefore we need to come up with a different framework to address this issue.

Currently, the implemented framework is to (generally) provide legal and safe abortions during the first trimester, and institute stipulations on the second and third trimesters.

That seems pretty fair to me.

As I've stated before the viability argument is dumb and unfounded. A better rule would be 6 weeks or when the heart beat first develops. I recognize their is no perfect solution. But the goal is as a few as possible and as close to perfect as possible. Ending abortions that are simply done out of convenience sake is the goal I would like to see reached. That seems pretty fair to me.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 21, 2019, 02:14:16 PM
that is because you are not the one being killed
So you're OK telling rape victims they must give birth to that fetus?

Does killing the child make the rape "go away"? No...two wrongs don't make a right. Bad things happen, you cant just sweep the consequences of those bad actions under the rug.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 21, 2019, 02:17:40 PM
   ďThis is not the difference at all.  Your logic has broken down.  We all believe we have the right to impose certain views on others.  That is why rape, murder, theft and drunk driving are illegal.Ē 

Not my logic that is broken.

The difference is, in part, because rape, murder, theft and drunk driving are all pretty well universally understood to be unacceptable. I donít see millions of rapists and murderers protesting that rape and murder be legalized and millions more agreeing with them.

Furthermore those are crimes against individual citizens - not unborn fetuses. Laws against abortion are a violation of an individualís rights. Now you may believe that a fetus is a live human being entitled to all the rights of an individual. Many others disagree.

The majority of those in the anti abortionist camp have been brought up Roman Catholic and the movement is widely supported by the Church. One might suggest that given the history of the Church it does not in any way give it a moral high ground to dictate morality to others.

Your logic is wrong. You're being inconsistent when it comes to morality. You agree that rape, murder, and theft are wrong. Yet you want to pick and choose within the category which should be reprimanded. You can't claim objective morality and pick and choose. So my guess is you believe in subjective morality which gives you no stance to even have a say in the argument because by your own terms you cannot tell me what is wrong and what is right.

Do you believe in free will?
Are you a materialist?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 21, 2019, 02:21:18 PM
You obviously have not read or misread my last few posts in this topic, because I address every point you raise.

It takes quite the person to force a rape victim to birth their rapist's child.

It's the old quote, "Left alone, good people will generally do good things. Bad people will generally do bad things. But to get a good man to do bad things, you need religion/"



that is because you are not the one being killed
So you're OK telling rape victims they must give birth to that fetus?

I am completely comfortable having laws that forbid the killing of an innocent human being.  Rape is sick but so is the intentional taking of an innocent human being.  You may think my response is cold, but I would contend the opposite is the case - supporting the killing of an innocent baby is cold.)  I would gladly pay higher taxes or voluntary give to help them emotionally, financially, etc.

Let's be clear, this is not the real issue for those who are pro-abortion rights or they would agree to accept an abortion ban except in the cases of rape and incest (And health of the mother).  The truth for nearly all is they want abortion for any reason the mother chooses, and for many, whenever the mother chooses.       

So you're okay with killing innocent unborn children because their mother doesn't want them, thinks they would be inconvenient, or may have a disability?  Why not a newborn?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 21, 2019, 02:29:45 PM
Does killing the child make the rape "go away"? No...two wrongs don't make a right. Bad things happen, you cant just sweep the consequences of those bad actions under the rug.
I've said repeatedly the whole point of the rape argument is to show that either one of two things must be true:
(1) the pro-life case is pure fanaticism, which will force rape victims to birth their rapist's children. Tim has just illustrated this a few posts prior.
or
(2) if it is OK to abort a fetus in the case of rape, then the idea that human life, with individual rights, etc., begins at conception is simply untrue.

Nobody here is trying to make rape "go away". Your argument is not only irrelevant, but totally callous. Imagine telling a rape victim that having an abortion will not make her rape "go away". It's ludicrous!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 21, 2019, 02:40:44 PM
Paul, you're lacking some nuance here.

I've already addressed the legal/illegality item a few posts up. I'll repeat that I think the current framework we have gets us pretty close. You want to argue the first 3 months, 2.5 months, 3.5 months, whatever - this is an area where accuracy is impossible because there is no 'right' answer, and certainly not a universal one.

Again with the point on aborting a fetus vs. killing a 1-year old. The lack of nuance is stunning - but I think you are being purposefully obtuse for argument's sake :) There are differences between a 3 month fetus, and a newborn. There are even more differences between a 1 week old handful of cells and a newborn. To say they are equivalent is silly.



First, when do you feel abortion should be illegal? lc, safety, I'd like for you guys to answer, too, please.

What's your definition of life? Like I said, if the fetus isn't living...I don't know what it's doing then. I see no reason to abort if it's not living.

Also, why do you feel laws against abortion are against a woman's right? Does the mother have the "right" to kill her 1 day old baby? It's the same DNA, same human as she had before - just older. So if you give the mother the right to terminate her child, what gives you the ability to take away that same "right" later on? We're talking about a change in location here, after all.

If you give her the right and ability to do it once, why are you forcing your views and values on her at a later date to not terminate the child? She brought it into the world. Why should she not be able to take it out of the world? Look at all these men trying to tell women what they can and can't do!

Since the baby is just part of her body (as LC and watcht seem to think), why are you telling her what to do with her body even if this body part is 5 years old?

I'm not Catholic, for what it's worth. But, I do try to be fair and rational. ;)
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 02:43:29 PM
You obviously have not read or misread my last few posts in this topic, because I address every point you raise.

It takes quite the person to force a rape victim to birth their rapist's child.

It's the old quote, "Left alone, good people will generally do good things. Bad people will generally do bad things. But to get a good man to do bad things, you need religion/"



that is because you are not the one being killed
So you're OK telling rape victims they must give birth to that fetus?

I am completely comfortable having laws that forbid the killing of an innocent human being.  Rape is sick but so is the intentional taking of an innocent human being.  You may think my response is cold, but I would contend the opposite is the case - supporting the killing of an innocent baby is cold.)  I would gladly pay higher taxes or voluntary give to help them emotionally, financially, etc.

Let's be clear, this is not the real issue for those who are pro-abortion rights or they would agree to accept an abortion ban except in the cases of rape and incest (And health of the mother).  The truth for nearly all is they want abortion for any reason the mother chooses, and for many, whenever the mother chooses.       

So you're okay with killing innocent unborn children because their mother doesn't want them, thinks they would be inconvenient, or may have a disability?  Why not a newborn?


I know this wasn't directed at me, if one is an atheist, it is irrational to believe in objective morality or absolute human rights.  In fact, there is no reason to trust one's conscience. One may say "this doesn't feel right...I shouldn't do this" but my leader told me to do it, so I will. The government determines human rights and the government or the individual determine morality - based on the whims of their nature. When you get away from these basic beliefs of morality and human rights, it's very easy to have mass killings or to create ideologies like Communism or Fascism.  There is nothing greater than our Government and she shall we worship!

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4076

I think this was relatively fair.



Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 21, 2019, 02:50:06 PM
Paul, you're lacking some nuance here.

I've already addressed the legal/illegality item a few posts up. I'll repeat that I think the current framework we have gets us pretty close. You want to argue the first 3 months, 2.5 months, 3.5 months, whatever - this is an area where accuracy is impossible because there is no 'right' answer, and certainly not a universal one.

Again with the point on aborting a fetus vs. killing a 1-year old. The lack of nuance is stunning - but I think you are being purposefully obtuse for argument's sake :) There are differences between a 3 month fetus, and a newborn. There are even more differences between a 1 week old handful of cells and a newborn. To say they are equivalent is silly.



First, when do you feel abortion should be illegal? lc, safety, I'd like for you guys to answer, too, please.

What's your definition of life? Like I said, if the fetus isn't living...I don't know what it's doing then. I see no reason to abort if it's not living.

Also, why do you feel laws against abortion are against a woman's right? Does the mother have the "right" to kill her 1 day old baby? It's the same DNA, same human as she had before - just older. So if you give the mother the right to terminate her child, what gives you the ability to take away that same "right" later on? We're talking about a change in location here, after all.

If you give her the right and ability to do it once, why are you forcing your views and values on her at a later date to not terminate the child? She brought it into the world. Why should she not be able to take it out of the world? Look at all these men trying to tell women what they can and can't do!

Since the baby is just part of her body (as LC and watcht seem to think), why are you telling her what to do with her body even if this body part is 5 years old?

I'm not Catholic, for what it's worth. But, I do try to be fair and rational. ;)

Yes, a lack of nuance can sometimes help elucidate things better.

Oh I agree, I can tell you that there is a huge difference from a newborn and a 2 year old. There is also a huge difference in the 2 year old, or 20 or 40 or 105 year old. They are all one and the same human being though.

So,  personally, do you feel that abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester (or thereabouts)? Do you think that one should be able to elect an abortion regardless of reasons?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 21, 2019, 03:15:18 PM

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state? 

No it actually does not.  The first Amendment forbids the State from interfering in religion (the Church).  It also forbids the State from establishing a religious test for office.  It does not forbid religion as a factor or the basis for decisions for individuals or elected officials.

What about all of the Supreme Court cases since Everson vs The School Board that have deconstructed the language to indicate there is a clear wall of separation between church and state?  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Tim Eriksen on May 21, 2019, 03:41:16 PM

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state? 

No it actually does not.  The first Amendment forbids the State from interfering in religion (the Church).  It also forbids the State from establishing a religious test for office.  It does not forbid religion as a factor or the basis for decisions for individuals or elected officials.

What about all of the Supreme Court cases since Everson vs The School Board that have deconstructed the language to indicate there is a clear wall of separation between church and state?  Cheers!

What about them?  I am not a lawyer.  You have the Establishment clause that prevents the government from establishing a state religion or unduly favoring one.  And there is the free-exercise clause which guarantees that people can exercise their religion.  Thus the Governor cannot be prevented from mentioning God.   
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 21, 2019, 03:57:11 PM
So,  personally, do you feel that abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester (or thereabouts)? Do you think that one should be able to elect an abortion regardless of reasons?
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.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: cwericb on May 21, 2019, 04:29:40 PM
ďPersonally 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. ď

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.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: wachtwoord on May 21, 2019, 04:45:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 21, 2019, 05:08:37 PM

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state? 

No it actually does not.  The first Amendment forbids the State from interfering in religion (the Church).  It also forbids the State from establishing a religious test for office.  It does not forbid religion as a factor or the basis for decisions for individuals or elected officials.

What about all of the Supreme Court cases since Everson vs The School Board that have deconstructed the language to indicate there is a clear wall of separation between church and state?  Cheers!

What about them?  I am not a lawyer.  You have the Establishment clause that prevents the government from establishing a state religion or unduly favoring one.  And there is the free-exercise clause which guarantees that people can exercise their religion.  Thus the Governor cannot be prevented from mentioning God.

I'm not a lawyer either, but there have been cases interpreting the distinction between the nonestablishment clause and free exercise clause that there is a wall between state and religion, and that public funds/the law (broadly interpreted I grant you) has no place in religion or vice-versa.  So the Alabama Governor's role as an official supercedes her religious beliefs, and the law should not be influenced by those religious beliefs.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Tim Eriksen on May 21, 2019, 08:30:29 PM

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state? 

No it actually does not.  The first Amendment forbids the State from interfering in religion (the Church).  It also forbids the State from establishing a religious test for office.  It does not forbid religion as a factor or the basis for decisions for individuals or elected officials.

What about all of the Supreme Court cases since Everson vs The School Board that have deconstructed the language to indicate there is a clear wall of separation between church and state?  Cheers!

What about them?  I am not a lawyer.  You have the Establishment clause that prevents the government from establishing a state religion or unduly favoring one.  And there is the free-exercise clause which guarantees that people can exercise their religion.  Thus the Governor cannot be prevented from mentioning God.

I'm not a lawyer either, but there have been cases interpreting the distinction between the nonestablishment clause and free exercise clause that there is a wall between state and religion, and that public funds/the law (broadly interpreted I grant you) has no place in religion or vice-versa.  So the Alabama Governor's role as an official supercedes her religious beliefs, and the law should not be influenced by those religious beliefs.  Cheers!

I haven't had Con Law since college, but I think you are totally incorrect on your understanding.  It is a common misunderstanding due to the term and the way the ACLU and the far left use it.

You keep implying that the "wall" functions the same in both directions.  It is primarily a one-way prohibition.   Government cannot unduly favor a religion.  Church funds could be used if a church wanted to forgo non-profit status.  People are totally free to bring their religious views into the public square.  They can actually vote for candidates based on a religious test if they wanted.  That is all part of free-exercise.  The government however cannot set up a religious test.  Elected officials are free to vote based on their judgment and religion can be a primary factor.  Officials can freely mention God.   I believe Congress and many state houses still pray before sessions, have a chaplain, pay for chaplains in the military, etc.  Thus laws can be influenced by those beliefs.     
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: wachtwoord on May 22, 2019, 04:25:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 05:56:21 AM
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 motherís 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.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: cubsfan on May 22, 2019, 06:14:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 06:22:08 AM
ďPersonally 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. ď

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.


Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: wachtwoord on May 22, 2019, 06:42:07 AM
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).
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 06:51:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 22, 2019, 07:31:07 AM
ďPersonally 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. ď

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.

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 08:11:22 AM
ďPersonally 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. ď

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.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 22, 2019, 08:26:51 AM
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."
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: wachtwoord on May 22, 2019, 08:46:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 22, 2019, 08:58:45 AM
A rational pregnant woman's decision making might look like this:

Do I want a child? Yes/No

If not, what options do I have?

Adoption or Abortion

Adoption:

Pro's:
-It satisfies stahleyp's moral sensibility
-You may be able to get financial help from the adoptive parents

Cons:
-All the physical trauma pregnancy and birthing entails - Essentially giving up your autonomy and health to support someone else.
-Social stigma - employers, friends, family of an unplanned pregnant
-Social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption - This can be huge for someone pursuing a professional career.
-Financial costs not covered by adoptive parents, charity, or insurance.

Abortion:

Pros:
-It is private - no one will know of the pregnancy unless you share so no social stigma.
-There is less physical trauma than pregnancy/birth
-Cost less than $1000 in the first trimester

Cons:
-You offend stahleyp's moral sensibility

Thus far, everyone in the pro-life camp has focused on adding cons on with respect to getting an abortion. These have been through restricting access through timing (heartbeat bills) or availability (ER proximity or legality) and by adding social pressure (protesting abortion, religious angle, etc.).

If the woman does not share stahleyp's moral sensibility, you have to add to the pros of the alternative: adoption. Repealing Roe will force those who do not have the means to take a "medical vacation," to resort to something unsafe or to have a baby. I will say this again: add $10M to the pro side of having an adoption and abortion will disappear. I know that won't happen, but what about instead of adding cons to abortion, you work on making adoption more appealing. If those same dollars and effort that go into the current prolife movement went into promoting the virtues of giving someone else the gift of life with an adoptable baby, the social stigma will start to disappear and the rate of abortion will drop.  Add a little financial incentive too and it will drop further. The current course of action forces the poor into a decision that is either unsafe or hurts them further physically and financially.     



 
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Cigarbutt on May 22, 2019, 09:33:08 AM
...
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.
Ö
Following this thread for independent thought on human consciousness.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5093842/

Newborns born with severe limitations (like newborns who have no or very little brain tissue) are typical examples where there is typically a discussion with parents about palliative care, withholding and even withdrawing treatment.
Most newborns with anencephaly die within a few hours or days but can survive longer.
Where is the humanity?
Who's playing god here?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 09:54:42 AM
A rational pregnant woman's decision making might look like this:

Do I want a child? Yes/No

If not, what options do I have?

Adoption or Abortion

Adoption:

Pro's:
-It satisfies stahleyp's moral sensibility
-You may be able to get financial help from the adoptive parents

Cons:
-All the physical trauma pregnancy and birthing entails - Essentially giving up your autonomy and health to support someone else.
-Social stigma - employers, friends, family of an unplanned pregnant
-Social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption - This can be huge for someone pursuing a professional career.
-Financial costs not covered by adoptive parents, charity, or insurance.

Abortion:

Pros:
-It is private - no one will know of the pregnancy unless you share so no social stigma.
-There is less physical trauma than pregnancy/birth
-Cost less than $1000 in the first trimester

Cons:
-You offend stahleyp's moral sensibility

Thus far, everyone in the pro-life camp has focused on adding cons on with respect to getting an abortion. These have been through restricting access through timing (heartbeat bills) or availability (ER proximity or legality) and by adding social pressure (protesting abortion, religious angle, etc.).

If the woman does not share stahleyp's moral sensibility, you have to add to the pros of the alternative: adoption. Repealing Roe will force those who do not have the means to take a "medical vacation," to resort to something unsafe or to have a baby. I will say this again: add $10M to the pro side of having an adoption and abortion will disappear. I know that won't happen, but what about instead of adding cons to abortion, you work on making adoption more appealing. If those same dollars and effort that go into the current prolife movement went into promoting the virtues of giving someone else the gift of life with an adoptable baby, the social stigma will start to disappear and the rate of abortion will drop.  Add a little financial incentive too and it will drop further. The current course of action forces the poor into a decision that is either unsafe or hurts them further physically and financially.   

Did you notice that none of your arguments are around the person being involuntary terminated? The person being harmed the most is being completely ignored in the decision making here.

As far as social stigma is concerned, why does that matter? I'm making a moral argument here - not an argument for convenience or social acceptance. I have no reason to believe the mother isn't terminating an innocent human life. Do you?

Sure there might be less physical trauma but I don't know about the emotional trauma. There are people who had an abortion and regret it deeply.

No one is forcing anyone into a medical vacation or anything! I believe its her body giving birth, yes? Did someone force her to get pregnant? I believe force is when someone else actually makes you to do something?

I agree that adoption should be more appealing.

On another note, do you feel that man should be required to pay child support even if he requested an abortion?

Cigar, thanks for the link. That's pretty interesting.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 22, 2019, 10:19:34 AM
Do the anti-abortionists here think that all women have and believe they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: wachtwoord on May 22, 2019, 10:29:23 AM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 22, 2019, 10:35:00 AM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 22, 2019, 10:36:56 AM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.

The only counter I have to that is if they know when they agree to have sex, that the terms are that the woman decides then it puts some onus on them to choose good partners as well.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 10:41:44 AM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 22, 2019, 10:44:06 AM
A rational pregnant woman's decision making might look like this:

Do I want a child? Yes/No

If not, what options do I have?

Adoption or Abortion

Adoption:

Pro's:
-It satisfies stahleyp's moral sensibility
-You may be able to get financial help from the adoptive parents

Cons:
-All the physical trauma pregnancy and birthing entails - Essentially giving up your autonomy and health to support someone else.
-Social stigma - employers, friends, family of an unplanned pregnant
-Social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption - This can be huge for someone pursuing a professional career.
-Financial costs not covered by adoptive parents, charity, or insurance.

Abortion:

Pros:
-It is private - no one will know of the pregnancy unless you share so no social stigma.
-There is less physical trauma than pregnancy/birth
-Cost less than $1000 in the first trimester

Cons:
-You offend stahleyp's moral sensibility

Thus far, everyone in the pro-life camp has focused on adding cons on with respect to getting an abortion. These have been through restricting access through timing (heartbeat bills) or availability (ER proximity or legality) and by adding social pressure (protesting abortion, religious angle, etc.).

If the woman does not share stahleyp's moral sensibility, you have to add to the pros of the alternative: adoption. Repealing Roe will force those who do not have the means to take a "medical vacation," to resort to something unsafe or to have a baby. I will say this again: add $10M to the pro side of having an adoption and abortion will disappear. I know that won't happen, but what about instead of adding cons to abortion, you work on making adoption more appealing. If those same dollars and effort that go into the current prolife movement went into promoting the virtues of giving someone else the gift of life with an adoptable baby, the social stigma will start to disappear and the rate of abortion will drop.  Add a little financial incentive too and it will drop further. The current course of action forces the poor into a decision that is either unsafe or hurts them further physically and financially.   

Did you notice that none of your arguments are around the person being involuntary terminated? The person being harmed the most is being completely ignored in the decision making here.

As far as social stigma is concerned, why does that matter? I'm making a moral argument here - not an argument for convenience or social acceptance. I have no reason to believe the mother isn't terminating an innocent human life. Do you?

Sure there might be less physical trauma but I don't know about the emotional trauma. There are people who had an abortion and regret it deeply.

No one is forcing anyone into a medical vacation or anything! I believe its her body giving birth, yes? Did someone force her to get pregnant? I believe force is when someone else actually makes you to do something?

I agree that adoption should be more appealing.

On another note, do you feel that man should be required to pay child support even if he requested an abortion?

Cigar, thanks for the link. That's pretty interesting.

It doesn't really matter what you and I believe. A pregnant woman can make the decision terminate the pregnancy regardless of legality either through a dangerous illegal method or visiting a place where the procedure is legal. This has been happening for 1000s of years.

Your moral argument is: the developing baby is a human and has rights no one has the right can infringe upon.

The other side of the argument is: a woman has autonomy over her body.

Lets use an analogy because people like those here:

Hindus believe cows are sacred. You can't eat beef, you can't kill a cow, you aren't even supposed to mess with a cow. They are sacred and you can be subject to capital punishment for killing a cow. Let's say you have a party and your Hindu friend brings a cow that runs into your house. He leaves, but this cow stays behind. It is wrecking your house, eating your food, ruffs you up some, and costs you money and there is absolutely no way to force this cow out of your house without killing it. You ask your Hindu buddy what to do and say you are going to have to kill it. He looks at you in shock and says with 100% sincerity it is a sin worthy of death if you do that.

He tells you to just deal with it: after nine months it will gore you up the butt, but then it will leave an you can give it to your neighbor. He warns you that he and most of the people you know are going to wonder what the hell is the matter with you though for refusing to take care of the cow though.     

Now it is a stupid analogy (and I probably offended some Indians, sorry), but you and I feel the same way about a cow as many people feel about a fetus. There are 100M people in India that would tell you tuff luck; cow's house now. You can argue that you have a right to remove (kill) the cow because it's your house and it doesn't belong there and you are really opposed to getting gored up the butt. Your feelings about this don't matter and you should have been more responsible in keeping the cow out of your house during that fun party. 

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 22, 2019, 10:58:23 AM
Quote
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.

It violates the NAP of the baby. You completely ignore the fact that sex is a social contract and the woman knows the risks before engaging in it. You don;t understand basic biology. Please tell me what changes biologically (regarding the baby) one day before birth to the day after birth. Nothing....it is still entirely dependent upon the mother both before and after being born. It is its OWN being both before and after birth.

Quote
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.
uh no...One what you're saying is out of context and two people who are born cannot have their life taken by their parents for any reason. It's called murder or they die of natural causes. That unborn child isn't dying of natural causes.

You can't reconcile with basic biology. I'm not the one denying anything, or trying to find loopholes to legalize murder. You literally compared an unborn child to a pen being lodged in someones body and how that pen has no right to be there. That's laughable. If you actively and knowingly create another being (whether on purpose or on accident) you are responsible for that being. You don't get to determine it's demise.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 22, 2019, 11:03:05 AM
A rational pregnant woman's decision making might look like this:

Do I want a child? Yes/No

If not, what options do I have?

Adoption or Abortion

Adoption:

Pro's:
-It satisfies stahleyp's moral sensibility
-You may be able to get financial help from the adoptive parents

Cons:
-All the physical trauma pregnancy and birthing entails - Essentially giving up your autonomy and health to support someone else.
-Social stigma - employers, friends, family of an unplanned pregnant
-Social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption - This can be huge for someone pursuing a professional career.
-Financial costs not covered by adoptive parents, charity, or insurance.

Abortion:

Pros:
-It is private - no one will know of the pregnancy unless you share so no social stigma.
-There is less physical trauma than pregnancy/birth
-Cost less than $1000 in the first trimester

Cons:
-You offend stahleyp's moral sensibility

Thus far, everyone in the pro-life camp has focused on adding cons on with respect to getting an abortion. These have been through restricting access through timing (heartbeat bills) or availability (ER proximity or legality) and by adding social pressure (protesting abortion, religious angle, etc.).

If the woman does not share stahleyp's moral sensibility, you have to add to the pros of the alternative: adoption. Repealing Roe will force those who do not have the means to take a "medical vacation," to resort to something unsafe or to have a baby. I will say this again: add $10M to the pro side of having an adoption and abortion will disappear. I know that won't happen, but what about instead of adding cons to abortion, you work on making adoption more appealing. If those same dollars and effort that go into the current prolife movement went into promoting the virtues of giving someone else the gift of life with an adoptable baby, the social stigma will start to disappear and the rate of abortion will drop.  Add a little financial incentive too and it will drop further. The current course of action forces the poor into a decision that is either unsafe or hurts them further physically and financially.   

It's an argument of morality.....it has nothing to do with social standing or economic conditions.....
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 22, 2019, 11:04:25 AM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 22, 2019, 11:05:10 AM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

And yet another example of you wanting to sweep things under the rug....Not to mention having double standards. Why shouldn't that can of worms be opened? It seems perfectly fair based on your standards of right and wrong (which apparently are completely subjective).
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 11:09:10 AM
A rational pregnant woman's decision making might look like this:

Do I want a child? Yes/No

If not, what options do I have?

Adoption or Abortion

Adoption:

Pro's:
-It satisfies stahleyp's moral sensibility
-You may be able to get financial help from the adoptive parents

Cons:
-All the physical trauma pregnancy and birthing entails - Essentially giving up your autonomy and health to support someone else.
-Social stigma - employers, friends, family of an unplanned pregnant
-Social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption - This can be huge for someone pursuing a professional career.
-Financial costs not covered by adoptive parents, charity, or insurance.

Abortion:

Pros:
-It is private - no one will know of the pregnancy unless you share so no social stigma.
-There is less physical trauma than pregnancy/birth
-Cost less than $1000 in the first trimester

Cons:
-You offend stahleyp's moral sensibility

Thus far, everyone in the pro-life camp has focused on adding cons on with respect to getting an abortion. These have been through restricting access through timing (heartbeat bills) or availability (ER proximity or legality) and by adding social pressure (protesting abortion, religious angle, etc.).

If the woman does not share stahleyp's moral sensibility, you have to add to the pros of the alternative: adoption. Repealing Roe will force those who do not have the means to take a "medical vacation," to resort to something unsafe or to have a baby. I will say this again: add $10M to the pro side of having an adoption and abortion will disappear. I know that won't happen, but what about instead of adding cons to abortion, you work on making adoption more appealing. If those same dollars and effort that go into the current prolife movement went into promoting the virtues of giving someone else the gift of life with an adoptable baby, the social stigma will start to disappear and the rate of abortion will drop.  Add a little financial incentive too and it will drop further. The current course of action forces the poor into a decision that is either unsafe or hurts them further physically and financially.   

Did you notice that none of your arguments are around the person being involuntary terminated? The person being harmed the most is being completely ignored in the decision making here.

As far as social stigma is concerned, why does that matter? I'm making a moral argument here - not an argument for convenience or social acceptance. I have no reason to believe the mother isn't terminating an innocent human life. Do you?

Sure there might be less physical trauma but I don't know about the emotional trauma. There are people who had an abortion and regret it deeply.

No one is forcing anyone into a medical vacation or anything! I believe its her body giving birth, yes? Did someone force her to get pregnant? I believe force is when someone else actually makes you to do something?

I agree that adoption should be more appealing.

On another note, do you feel that man should be required to pay child support even if he requested an abortion?

Cigar, thanks for the link. That's pretty interesting.

It doesn't really matter what you and I believe. A pregnant woman can make the decision terminate the pregnancy regardless of legality either through a dangerous illegal method or visiting a place where the procedure is legal. This has been happening for 1000s of years.

Your moral argument is: the developing baby is a human and has rights no one has the right can infringe upon.

The other side of the argument is: a woman has autonomy over her body.

Lets use an analogy because people like those here:

Hindus believe cows are sacred. You can't eat beef, you can't kill a cow, you aren't even supposed to mess with a cow. They are sacred and you can be subject to capital punishment for killing a cow. Let's say you have a party and your Hindu friend brings a cow that runs into your house. He leaves, but this cow stays behind. It is wrecking your house, eating your food, ruffs you up some, and costs you money and there is absolutely no way to force this cow out of your house without killing it. You ask your Hindu buddy what to do and say you are going to have to kill it. He looks at you in shock and says with 100% sincerity it is a sin worthy of death if you do that.

He tells you to just deal with it: after nine months it will gore you up the butt, but then it will leave an you can give it to your neighbor. He warns you that he and most of the people you know are going to wonder what the hell is the matter with you though for refusing to take care of the cow though.     

Now it is a stupid analogy (and I probably offended some Indians, sorry), but you and I feel the same way about a cow as many people feel about a fetus. There are 100M people in India that would tell you tuff luck; cow's house now. You can argue that you have a right to remove (kill) the cow because it's your house and it doesn't belong there and you are really opposed to getting gored up the butt. Your feelings about this don't matter and you should have been more responsible in keeping the cow out of your house during that fun party.

For the other side of the argument: I 100% agree. The woman does have autonomy over her body. The fetus is not her body though. Like I said before, it has it's own unique DNA, feet, hands etc. If what you say is true (that the fetus is just another part of the body) does it mean she has 4 feet? And two unique form of DNA? If not, what best explains it?

A good example is a tumor. The tumor is growing in the body but it's also a part of the body. What separates this and the fetus? DNA. The DNA of the tumor is mutated from the mother's dna. The fetus has unique DNA.

Many, many, many Hindu Indians eat beef. I know not a single person (of any religion) who eats people but plenty who have no problem with beef.

I have never met an Indian person (and I've met a ton born in the US and not) who gets offended if I eat a hamburger.

By the way, how did the cow get through the front door? :o
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 11:10:00 AM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 22, 2019, 11:17:14 AM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 22, 2019, 11:17:37 AM
A rational pregnant woman's decision making might look like this:

Do I want a child? Yes/No

If not, what options do I have?

Adoption or Abortion

Adoption:

Pro's:
-It satisfies stahleyp's moral sensibility
-You may be able to get financial help from the adoptive parents

Cons:
-All the physical trauma pregnancy and birthing entails - Essentially giving up your autonomy and health to support someone else.
-Social stigma - employers, friends, family of an unplanned pregnant
-Social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption - This can be huge for someone pursuing a professional career.
-Financial costs not covered by adoptive parents, charity, or insurance.

Abortion:

Pros:
-It is private - no one will know of the pregnancy unless you share so no social stigma.
-There is less physical trauma than pregnancy/birth
-Cost less than $1000 in the first trimester

Cons:
-You offend stahleyp's moral sensibility

Thus far, everyone in the pro-life camp has focused on adding cons on with respect to getting an abortion. These have been through restricting access through timing (heartbeat bills) or availability (ER proximity or legality) and by adding social pressure (protesting abortion, religious angle, etc.).

If the woman does not share stahleyp's moral sensibility, you have to add to the pros of the alternative: adoption. Repealing Roe will force those who do not have the means to take a "medical vacation," to resort to something unsafe or to have a baby. I will say this again: add $10M to the pro side of having an adoption and abortion will disappear. I know that won't happen, but what about instead of adding cons to abortion, you work on making adoption more appealing. If those same dollars and effort that go into the current prolife movement went into promoting the virtues of giving someone else the gift of life with an adoptable baby, the social stigma will start to disappear and the rate of abortion will drop.  Add a little financial incentive too and it will drop further. The current course of action forces the poor into a decision that is either unsafe or hurts them further physically and financially.   

It's an argument of morality.....it has nothing to do with social standing or economic conditions.....

Exactly, but your morality is not shared by everyone. Its just like the example I gave Stahley.

It doesn't really matter what you and I believe. A pregnant woman can make the decision terminate the pregnancy regardless of legality either through a dangerous illegal method or visiting a place where the procedure is legal. This has been happening for 1000s of years.

Your moral argument is: the developing baby is a human and has rights no one has the right can infringe upon.

The other side of the argument is: a woman has autonomy over her body.

Lets use an analogy because people like those here:

Hindus believe cows are sacred. You can't eat beef, you can't kill a cow, you aren't even supposed to mess with a cow. They are sacred and you can be subject to capital punishment for killing a cow. Let's say you have a party and your Hindu friend brings a cow that runs into your house. He leaves, but this cow stays behind. It is wrecking your house, eating your food, ruffs you up some, and costs you money and there is absolutely no way to force this cow out of your house without killing it. You ask your Hindu buddy what to do and say you are going to have to kill it. He looks at you in shock and says with 100% sincerity it is a sin worthy of death if you do that.

He tells you to just deal with it: after nine months it will gore you up the butt, but then it will leave an you can give it to your neighbor. He warns you that he and most of the people you know are going to wonder what the hell is the matter with you though for refusing to take care of the cow though.     

Now it is a stupid analogy (and I probably offended some Indians, sorry), but you and I feel the same way about a cow as many people feel about a fetus. There are 100M people in India that would tell you tuff luck; cow's house now. You can argue that you have a right to remove (kill) the cow because it's your house and it doesn't belong there and you are really opposed to getting gored up the butt. Your feelings about this don't matter and you should have been more responsible in keeping the cow out of your house during that fun party. 

Surely there is some moral argument that you can control what comes in and stays in your house. There are many Hindus that would argue with you that killing the cow is not moral. I think the pro-choice camp is in favor of letting the person most impacted having the cow in their house can make the decision about how to proceed. 
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 22, 2019, 11:21:55 AM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

And yet another example of you wanting to sweep things under the rug....Not to mention having double standards. Why shouldn't that can of worms be opened? It seems perfectly fair based on your standards of right and wrong (which apparently are completely subjective).

Ok let's open the can of worms. If you go down this route, no father ever has to pay child support because he claims he wanted an abortion but the mother did not get one.

So legally, only women will be required to support the child.

And then to take it one step further, do you think this will lead to more or less abortions?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 22, 2019, 11:29:25 AM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

And yet another example of you wanting to sweep things under the rug....Not to mention having double standards. Why shouldn't that can of worms be opened? It seems perfectly fair based on your standards of right and wrong (which apparently are completely subjective).

Ok let's open the can of worms. If you go down this route, no father ever has to pay child support because he claims he wanted an abortion but the mother did not get one.

So legally, only women will be required to support the child.

And then to take it one step further, do you think this will lead to more or less abortions?

Why does the woman get a choice in being responsible or not for the child but the man doesn't? It's a double standard. By you standards the woman can have an abortion for economic reasons, but a man cannot choose to disengage from this commitment for economic reasons.

Why are you okay with legislation that forces men to do things but not women?

edit: I don't know if it will lead to more or less abortions. I bet it would lead to people having more responsible sex. But that isn't the point of that argument.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 22, 2019, 11:32:54 AM

It doesn't really matter what you and I believe. A pregnant woman can make the decision terminate the pregnancy regardless of legality either through a dangerous illegal method or visiting a place where the procedure is legal. This has been happening for 1000s of years.

Your moral argument is: the developing baby is a human and has rights no one has the right can infringe upon.

The other side of the argument is: a woman has autonomy over her body.

Lets use an analogy because people like those here:

Hindus believe cows are sacred. You can't eat beef, you can't kill a cow, you aren't even supposed to mess with a cow. They are sacred and you can be subject to capital punishment for killing a cow. Let's say you have a party and your Hindu friend brings a cow that runs into your house. He leaves, but this cow stays behind. It is wrecking your house, eating your food, ruffs you up some, and costs you money and there is absolutely no way to force this cow out of your house without killing it. You ask your Hindu buddy what to do and say you are going to have to kill it. He looks at you in shock and says with 100% sincerity it is a sin worthy of death if you do that.

He tells you to just deal with it: after nine months it will gore you up the butt, but then it will leave an you can give it to your neighbor. He warns you that he and most of the people you know are going to wonder what the hell is the matter with you though for refusing to take care of the cow though.     

Now it is a stupid analogy (and I probably offended some Indians, sorry), but you and I feel the same way about a cow as many people feel about a fetus. There are 100M people in India that would tell you tuff luck; cow's house now. You can argue that you have a right to remove (kill) the cow because it's your house and it doesn't belong there and you are really opposed to getting gored up the butt. Your feelings about this don't matter and you should have been more responsible in keeping the cow out of your house during that fun party.

For the other side of the argument: I 100% agree. The woman does have autonomy over her body. The fetus is not her body though. Like I said before, it has it's own unique DNA, feet, hands etc. If what you say is true (that the fetus is just another part of the body) does it mean she has 4 feet? And two unique form of DNA? If not, what best explains it?

A good example is a tumor. The tumor is growing in the body but it's also a part of the body. What separates this and the fetus? DNA. The DNA of the tumor is mutated from the mother's dna. The fetus has unique DNA.

Many, many, many Hindu Indians eat beef. I know not a single person (of any religion) who eats people but plenty who have no problem with beef.

I have never met an Indian person (and I've met a ton born in the US and not) who gets offended if I eat a hamburger.

By the way, how did the cow get through the front door? :o

I have an Indian friend that is pretty touchy about the subject. There is a large percentage of the 1B Indian population that will not eat meat, more that won't eat beef, and a small group who will kill you for doing it, so...

I guess that is what I am getting at. The developing baby has separate DNA, hands, feet etc. and is sacred to you and is afforded all the rights endowed by the creator. My friend can explain exactly why hurting a cow is even worse than hurting a person. Your morality and his are based off of culture, upbringing, religion etc. Personally I am against ending a baby's life, but if that damn cow gets into my house I'm going to deal with it regardless of what my friend thinks about it.

I am not going to let his morality dictate my decision and I wouldn't force my morality on him, or a woman.   
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: LC on May 22, 2019, 11:43:55 AM
Why does the woman get a choice in being responsible or not for the child but the man doesn't? It's a double standard. By you standards the woman can have an abortion for economic reasons, but a man cannot choose to disengage from this commitment for economic reasons.
A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same.

The situation for men and women during pregnancy is not the same. This is why women get to make the choice during the period of time when a fetus is growing inside them.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 11:48:42 AM

It doesn't really matter what you and I believe. A pregnant woman can make the decision terminate the pregnancy regardless of legality either through a dangerous illegal method or visiting a place where the procedure is legal. This has been happening for 1000s of years.

Your moral argument is: the developing baby is a human and has rights no one has the right can infringe upon.

The other side of the argument is: a woman has autonomy over her body.

Lets use an analogy because people like those here:

Hindus believe cows are sacred. You can't eat beef, you can't kill a cow, you aren't even supposed to mess with a cow. They are sacred and you can be subject to capital punishment for killing a cow. Let's say you have a party and your Hindu friend brings a cow that runs into your house. He leaves, but this cow stays behind. It is wrecking your house, eating your food, ruffs you up some, and costs you money and there is absolutely no way to force this cow out of your house without killing it. You ask your Hindu buddy what to do and say you are going to have to kill it. He looks at you in shock and says with 100% sincerity it is a sin worthy of death if you do that.

He tells you to just deal with it: after nine months it will gore you up the butt, but then it will leave an you can give it to your neighbor. He warns you that he and most of the people you know are going to wonder what the hell is the matter with you though for refusing to take care of the cow though.     

Now it is a stupid analogy (and I probably offended some Indians, sorry), but you and I feel the same way about a cow as many people feel about a fetus. There are 100M people in India that would tell you tuff luck; cow's house now. You can argue that you have a right to remove (kill) the cow because it's your house and it doesn't belong there and you are really opposed to getting gored up the butt. Your feelings about this don't matter and you should have been more responsible in keeping the cow out of your house during that fun party.

For the other side of the argument: I 100% agree. The woman does have autonomy over her body. The fetus is not her body though. Like I said before, it has it's own unique DNA, feet, hands etc. If what you say is true (that the fetus is just another part of the body) does it mean she has 4 feet? And two unique form of DNA? If not, what best explains it?

A good example is a tumor. The tumor is growing in the body but it's also a part of the body. What separates this and the fetus? DNA. The DNA of the tumor is mutated from the mother's dna. The fetus has unique DNA.

Many, many, many Hindu Indians eat beef. I know not a single person (of any religion) who eats people but plenty who have no problem with beef.

I have never met an Indian person (and I've met a ton born in the US and not) who gets offended if I eat a hamburger.

By the way, how did the cow get through the front door? :o

I have an Indian friend that is pretty touchy about the subject. There is a large percentage of the 1B Indian population that will not eat meat, more that won't eat beef, and a small group who will kill you for doing it, so...

I guess that is what I am getting at. The developing baby has separate DNA, hands, feet etc. and is sacred to you and is afforded all the rights endowed by the creator. My friend can explain exactly why hurting a cow is even worse than hurting a person. Your morality and his are based off of culture, upbringing, religion etc. Personally I am against ending a baby's life, but if that damn cow gets into my house I'm going to deal with it regardless of what my friend thinks about it.

I am not going to let his morality dictate my decision and I wouldn't force my morality on him, or a woman.   

There are a lot of small groups that are irrational - that doesn't make their opinions valid :P

Even the Indian friends I have who don't eat beef, have no problem with me eating it.

Some people like Peter Singer think that animals have just as many rights as people. I disagree, obviously. I'll also say that if God doesn't exist, the the "unalienable Rights" that are endowed by the Creator also don't exist.

If that is one's premise, I see no reason to trust one's conscience (since it doesn't transcend anyone but the self) or to believe in something like human rights. So, the weak should die off and the strong survive. That's it. Otherwise, you're harming the evolutionary process for no purpose and the species gets weaker as a result.

Again, I'm not forcing my morality anymore than I would be forcing my morality on someone who is trying to rape someone. I'm simply trying to stop an event from occurring. I'm not forcing her to get pregnant or give birth - her body is doing that itself.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 11:54:59 AM
Why does the woman get a choice in being responsible or not for the child but the man doesn't? It's a double standard. By you standards the woman can have an abortion for economic reasons, but a man cannot choose to disengage from this commitment for economic reasons.
A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same.

The situation for men and women during pregnancy is not the same. This is why women get to make the choice during the period of time when a fetus is growing inside them.

No one is denying that the woman should make the choice during pregnancy. She calls the shots. If she chooses to continue, she can pay for the baby. If she doesn't want the child (like the man) she can terminate. The man never agreed to having the child - just the intercourse. The woman is agreeing to have the child and the intercourse. It's "her body, her choice". She can shoulder the "burden" of her choices.

You want to give the woman full authority over the pregnancy but not the outcome of that pregnancy (her decision). That's a double standard.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 11:57:05 AM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: wachtwoord on May 22, 2019, 12:05:40 PM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

Nonsense as this would also declare you not the legal father/guardian and take away all rights associated with that. Most father's (by choice) will want that title and associated rights.

Also, if nothing is written down and you start acting as the father this would be taken by the court as an admission of acceptance.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 22, 2019, 12:22:21 PM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?


Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 22, 2019, 12:37:19 PM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?

So you bring up the most obscure and extreme example possible and try to use it as a blanket for all policy?

The first sentence is quite laughable tbh. "If her pregnancy is the trigger." What does that even mean. You're making assumption on human psychology about a hypothetical situation and you expect anyone to take this argument seriously?

One.) If the man is abusive he will go to jail. End of story.
Two.) Plenty of facilities exist for women to escape abusive relationships where they and their children/babies/or unborn children will be taken care of.
Three.) I'll come up with something equally as dumb....Maybe an abusive man finds out his wife had been buying things he doesn't approve of. And as a result this is the trigger that sets him off. So to make everyone safe, lets make it illegal for women to buy anything to prevent abusive men from being triggered.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 22, 2019, 12:57:28 PM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?

So you bring up the most obscure and extreme example possible and try to use it as a blanket for all policy?

The first sentence is quite laughable tbh. "If her pregnancy is the trigger." What does that even mean. You're making assumption on human psychology about a hypothetical situation and you expect anyone to take this argument seriously?

One.) If the man is abusive he will go to jail. End of story.
Two.) Plenty of facilities exist for women to escape abusive relationships where they and their children/babies/or unborn children will be taken care of.
Three.) I'll come up with something equally as dumb....Maybe an abusive man finds out his wife had been buying things he doesn't approve of. And as a result this is the trigger that sets him off. So to make everyone safe, lets make it illegal for women to buy anything to prevent abusive men from being triggered.

There are a lot of people bringing up extreme situations to justify their arguments.

You are presuming these women feel they have the agency to get out of these situations. There is a reason why these facilities have to advertise so much and outreach to woman in these bad situations and yet many of them still feel they canít leave. Is it logical? Is it rational? Perhaps for you with your life experience but perhaps not for them.

I donít have any personal experience with abusive relationships. I try to empathize with why people stay in them and itís really hard to understand. Perhaps, if you have more experience with them, you can enlighten us?

Plus the context in which we were discussing banning abortion, Paul, mentioned that he is pro castration for those that donít pay child support. If you want to give incentive to a narcissistic abusive man for making sure that a baby requiring child support (he knows he canít pay) is never born, castration is probably in the top 3.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: omagh on May 22, 2019, 01:00:38 PM
22 pages of hatred and posing...yawn!  Now go on and get off my lawn.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 01:24:14 PM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?

I don't quite understand. If the pregnancy is the trigger to exit the relationship (I think that's what you meant?), then it's reasonable to assume she the reason for the trigger is to have a better life for her child. Abortion wouldn't make sense here?

If he kills the fetus due to not wanting to pay child support, we have a proper solution for him. It will ensure that he doesn't have to pay it so he should be happy...but he won't be paying for anything else either since he wouldn't be alive.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 01:25:11 PM
22 pages of hatred and posing...yawn!  Now go on and get off my lawn.

Come join the conversation. ;)

What's your opinion on the topic?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 22, 2019, 01:43:08 PM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?

I don't quite understand. If the pregnancy is the trigger to exit the relationship (I think that's what you meant?), then it's reasonable to assume she the reason for the trigger is to have a better life for her child. Abortion wouldn't make sense here?

If he kills the fetus due to not wanting to pay child support, we have a proper solution for him. It will ensure that he doesn't have to pay it so he should be happy...but he won't be paying for anything else either since he wouldn't be alive.

If she doesnít abort the child she will always have a relationship with the abuser. The trigger is for a better life for her.

On the second point, donít you think abusive men have tried to get away with killing someone before? He will try, he might or might not get caught. If this becomes a more regular experience then perhaps some innocent men will get executed too if their pregnant partner actually does accidentally fall down the stairs.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 01:59:05 PM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?

I don't quite understand. If the pregnancy is the trigger to exit the relationship (I think that's what you meant?), then it's reasonable to assume she the reason for the trigger is to have a better life for her child. Abortion wouldn't make sense here?

If he kills the fetus due to not wanting to pay child support, we have a proper solution for him. It will ensure that he doesn't have to pay it so he should be happy...but he won't be paying for anything else either since he wouldn't be alive.

If she doesnít abort the child she will always have a relationship with the abuser. The trigger is for a better life for her.

On the second point, donít you think abusive men have tried to get away with killing someone before? He will try, he might or might not get caught. If this becomes a more regular experience then perhaps some innocent men will get executed too if their pregnant partner actually does accidentally fall down the stairs.

Safety, your in vitro fertilization argument was solid. This one though is a big, big stretch though.

We're totally talking hypotheticals here but I don't buy it.

First, her leaving the man without having someone else to replace that need (the baby) is pretty far fetched. Chances are she's with him due to low self esteem, wants to feel loved, lonely or some other reason. If she hasn't left him while not pregnant before, it's silly to think she'll leave him when not pregnant. The trigger (the baby) also gives her a reason to leave. Otherwise, the odds are high should would just return the relationship since her reason is no longer there.

For the second part, I'm not a crime scene investigator but I'm fairly confident that they can determine if someone fell down the stairs or was killed. People rarely ever die from falling down the stairs. It's much more likely for the baby to die and she would be a witness to his crime. There would probably be a lot of evidence emails, family, text messages indicating that he was not happy with the baby. This would allow a court to hand down proper judgement. Could some rare things happen, yes but many, many more lives would be saved by the castration process.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 22, 2019, 02:26:39 PM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?

I don't quite understand. If the pregnancy is the trigger to exit the relationship (I think that's what you meant?), then it's reasonable to assume she the reason for the trigger is to have a better life for her child. Abortion wouldn't make sense here?

If he kills the fetus due to not wanting to pay child support, we have a proper solution for him. It will ensure that he doesn't have to pay it so he should be happy...but he won't be paying for anything else either since he wouldn't be alive.

If she doesnít abort the child she will always have a relationship with the abuser. The trigger is for a better life for her.

On the second point, donít you think abusive men have tried to get away with killing someone before? He will try, he might or might not get caught. If this becomes a more regular experience then perhaps some innocent men will get executed too if their pregnant partner actually does accidentally fall down the stairs.

Safety, your in vitro fertilization argument was solid. This one though is a big, big stretch though.

We're totally talking hypotheticals here but I don't buy it.

First, her leaving the man without having someone else to replace that need (the baby) is pretty far fetched. Chances are she's with him due to low self esteem, wants to feel loved, lonely or some other reason. If she hasn't left him while not pregnant before, it's silly to think she'll leave him when not pregnant. The trigger (the baby) also gives her a reason to leave. Otherwise, the odds are high should would just return the relationship since her reason is no longer there.

For the second part, I'm not a crime scene investigator but I'm fairly confident that they can determine if someone fell down the stairs or was killed. People rarely ever die from falling down the stairs. It's much more likely for the baby to die and she would be a witness to his crime. There would probably be a lot of evidence emails, family, text messages indicating that he was not happy with the baby. This would allow a court to hand down proper judgement. Could some rare things happen, yes but many, many more lives would be saved by the castration process.

The first example was based on a friend of mine who did get the abortion and leave the abusive boyfriend soon after. It was her wake up call. Again, these are mostly hypothetical situations and parties are not necessarily going to act rationally.

On the second part. If the law of the land is castration then the man might not make his feelings known. You are assuming a situation under the current framework where he would plead for her to have an abortion and she would choose not too. She currently has more protection than she will in your ideal world.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 22, 2019, 02:34:04 PM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?

I don't quite understand. If the pregnancy is the trigger to exit the relationship (I think that's what you meant?), then it's reasonable to assume she the reason for the trigger is to have a better life for her child. Abortion wouldn't make sense here?

If he kills the fetus due to not wanting to pay child support, we have a proper solution for him. It will ensure that he doesn't have to pay it so he should be happy...but he won't be paying for anything else either since he wouldn't be alive.

If she doesnít abort the child she will always have a relationship with the abuser. The trigger is for a better life for her.

On the second point, donít you think abusive men have tried to get away with killing someone before? He will try, he might or might not get caught. If this becomes a more regular experience then perhaps some innocent men will get executed too if their pregnant partner actually does accidentally fall down the stairs.

Safety, your in vitro fertilization argument was solid. This one though is a big, big stretch though.

We're totally talking hypotheticals here but I don't buy it.

First, her leaving the man without having someone else to replace that need (the baby) is pretty far fetched. Chances are she's with him due to low self esteem, wants to feel loved, lonely or some other reason. If she hasn't left him while not pregnant before, it's silly to think she'll leave him when not pregnant. The trigger (the baby) also gives her a reason to leave. Otherwise, the odds are high should would just return the relationship since her reason is no longer there.

For the second part, I'm not a crime scene investigator but I'm fairly confident that they can determine if someone fell down the stairs or was killed. People rarely ever die from falling down the stairs. It's much more likely for the baby to die and she would be a witness to his crime. There would probably be a lot of evidence emails, family, text messages indicating that he was not happy with the baby. This would allow a court to hand down proper judgement. Could some rare things happen, yes but many, many more lives would be saved by the castration process.

The first example was based on a friend of mine who did get the abortion and leave the abusive boyfriend soon after. It was her wake up call. Again, these are mostly hypothetical situations and parties are not necessarily going to act rationally.

On the second part. If the law of the land is castration then the man might not make his feelings known. You are assuming a situation under the current framework where he would plead for her to have an abortion and she would choose not too. She currently has more protection than she will in your ideal world.

Sorry to hear about your friend. Does she have any regrets about the abortion or is she satisfied with her decision?

I don't know if she has more protection in the current situation. I mean, he could always still beat her to injure the baby. That kind of stuff happens now. Castration would give her more power though. Perhaps I'm a little too optimistic about mankind, but I don't think most are willing to kill another human to avoid paying child support.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: SafetyinNumbers on May 22, 2019, 03:01:47 PM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?

I don't quite understand. If the pregnancy is the trigger to exit the relationship (I think that's what you meant?), then it's reasonable to assume she the reason for the trigger is to have a better life for her child. Abortion wouldn't make sense here?

If he kills the fetus due to not wanting to pay child support, we have a proper solution for him. It will ensure that he doesn't have to pay it so he should be happy...but he won't be paying for anything else either since he wouldn't be alive.

If she doesnít abort the child she will always have a relationship with the abuser. The trigger is for a better life for her.

On the second point, donít you think abusive men have tried to get away with killing someone before? He will try, he might or might not get caught. If this becomes a more regular experience then perhaps some innocent men will get executed too if their pregnant partner actually does accidentally fall down the stairs.

Safety, your in vitro fertilization argument was solid. This one though is a big, big stretch though.

We're totally talking hypotheticals here but I don't buy it.

First, her leaving the man without having someone else to replace that need (the baby) is pretty far fetched. Chances are she's with him due to low self esteem, wants to feel loved, lonely or some other reason. If she hasn't left him while not pregnant before, it's silly to think she'll leave him when not pregnant. The trigger (the baby) also gives her a reason to leave. Otherwise, the odds are high should would just return the relationship since her reason is no longer there.

For the second part, I'm not a crime scene investigator but I'm fairly confident that they can determine if someone fell down the stairs or was killed. People rarely ever die from falling down the stairs. It's much more likely for the baby to die and she would be a witness to his crime. There would probably be a lot of evidence emails, family, text messages indicating that he was not happy with the baby. This would allow a court to hand down proper judgement. Could some rare things happen, yes but many, many more lives would be saved by the castration process.

The first example was based on a friend of mine who did get the abortion and leave the abusive boyfriend soon after. It was her wake up call. Again, these are mostly hypothetical situations and parties are not necessarily going to act rationally.

On the second part. If the law of the land is castration then the man might not make his feelings known. You are assuming a situation under the current framework where he would plead for her to have an abortion and she would choose not too. She currently has more protection than she will in your ideal world.

Sorry to hear about your friend. Does she have any regrets about the abortion or is she satisfied with her decision?

I don't know if she has more protection in the current situation. I mean, he could always still beat her to injure the baby. That kind of stuff happens now. Castration would give her more power though. Perhaps I'm a little too optimistic about mankind, but I don't think most are willing to kill another human to avoid paying child support.

She has no regrets.

The difference is in your ideal world, she couldnít have the abortion that she wanted to so he would find out and try to stop it. Probably just by convincing her to get an illegal abortion in an unsafe environment. Castanza would probably argue she shouldnít be convinced but again I struggle to understand why abusive relationships occur in the first place from my privileged perspective. Also, they both donít want it so maybe itís easier to convince her.

Also, itís not about not wanting to pay the child support, necessarily. Sometimes itís about not being able to. In your ideal world, itís a choice between his penis or a baby and a woman he doesnít care about.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Parsad on May 22, 2019, 03:04:31 PM
By the way, I'm guessing most of you don't know that cows used to be consumed by Hindus back before 4th Century BC.  The theory about cows becoming sacred is partially because vegetarianism was spreading throughout India and that cows had become somewhat scarce and were needed for milk production. 

Thus sacred cows are often created out of necessity or common sense.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 22, 2019, 08:34:17 PM
By the way, I'm guessing most of you don't know that cows used to be consumed by Hindus back before 4th Century BC.  The theory about cows becoming sacred is partially because vegetarianism was spreading throughout India and that cows had become somewhat scarce and were needed for milk production. 

Thus sacred cows are often created out of necessity or common sense.  Cheers!

Interesting! My friend is a brahman and devout hindu  has a few interesting beliefs we've talked about. The whole cow analogy is just a silly way of showing how morality is subjective.  In reality, he is a vegetarian and won't scold a stranger for eating a hamburger, but has pointed it out enough that I won't eat beef in front if him.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 06:55:10 AM
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?

I don't quite understand. If the pregnancy is the trigger to exit the relationship (I think that's what you meant?), then it's reasonable to assume she the reason for the trigger is to have a better life for her child. Abortion wouldn't make sense here?

If he kills the fetus due to not wanting to pay child support, we have a proper solution for him. It will ensure that he doesn't have to pay it so he should be happy...but he won't be paying for anything else either since he wouldn't be alive.

If she doesnít abort the child she will always have a relationship with the abuser. The trigger is for a better life for her.

On the second point, donít you think abusive men have tried to get away with killing someone before? He will try, he might or might not get caught. If this becomes a more regular experience then perhaps some innocent men will get executed too if their pregnant partner actually does accidentally fall down the stairs.

Safety, your in vitro fertilization argument was solid. This one though is a big, big stretch though.

We're totally talking hypotheticals here but I don't buy it.

First, her leaving the man without having someone else to replace that need (the baby) is pretty far fetched. Chances are she's with him due to low self esteem, wants to feel loved, lonely or some other reason. If she hasn't left him while not pregnant before, it's silly to think she'll leave him when not pregnant. The trigger (the baby) also gives her a reason to leave. Otherwise, the odds are high should would just return the relationship since her reason is no longer there.

For the second part, I'm not a crime scene investigator but I'm fairly confident that they can determine if someone fell down the stairs or was killed. People rarely ever die from falling down the stairs. It's much more likely for the baby to die and she would be a witness to his crime. There would probably be a lot of evidence emails, family, text messages indicating that he was not happy with the baby. This would allow a court to hand down proper judgement. Could some rare things happen, yes but many, many more lives would be saved by the castration process.

The first example was based on a friend of mine who did get the abortion and leave the abusive boyfriend soon after. It was her wake up call. Again, these are mostly hypothetical situations and parties are not necessarily going to act rationally.

On the second part. If the law of the land is castration then the man might not make his feelings known. You are assuming a situation under the current framework where he would plead for her to have an abortion and she would choose not too. She currently has more protection than she will in your ideal world.

Sorry to hear about your friend. Does she have any regrets about the abortion or is she satisfied with her decision?

I don't know if she has more protection in the current situation. I mean, he could always still beat her to injure the baby. That kind of stuff happens now. Castration would give her more power though. Perhaps I'm a little too optimistic about mankind, but I don't think most are willing to kill another human to avoid paying child support.

She has no regrets.

The difference is in your ideal world, she couldnít have the abortion that she wanted to so he would find out and try to stop it. Probably just by convincing her to get an illegal abortion in an unsafe environment. Castanza would probably argue she shouldnít be convinced but again I struggle to understand why abusive relationships occur in the first place from my privileged perspective. Also, they both donít want it so maybe itís easier to convince her.

Also, itís not about not wanting to pay the child support, necessarily. Sometimes itís about not being able to. In your ideal world, itís a choice between his penis or a baby and a woman he doesnít care about.

Castration does not involve cutting on that part of his body (though I suppose that could still be on the table). ;)

I do think you're more emotionally tied to this situation than I am but her putting herself in that situation does not give her the "right" to terminate another person. Privilege or not people still need to be responsible for their choices. I'll say that it's good she's out of the abusive relationship but she shouldn't be happy she had to sacrifice her own child for it. Again I'm looking at the moral picture of it all. She made choices, he made choices, the fetus did not - yet paid the biggest price. That's not a moral good (in my eyes at least). Though it's better than the man killing the woman and the fetus.

The castration offer would be the option of the woman. The man wouldn't have castration if she didn't want it to occur. If he's helping around home or baby, she probably wouldn't even request castration. If he were castrated, that would probably reduce his abusive behavior since his testosterone would be significantly reduce too.

I could certainly be mistaken but I think castration scenario might make things better overall, for most people, with things probably worse off for some.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 07:14:09 AM
By the way, I'm guessing most of you don't know that cows used to be consumed by Hindus back before 4th Century BC.  The theory about cows becoming sacred is partially because vegetarianism was spreading throughout India and that cows had become somewhat scarce and were needed for milk production. 

Thus sacred cows are often created out of necessity or common sense.  Cheers!

Interesting! My friend is a brahman and devout hindu  has a few interesting beliefs we've talked about. The whole cow analogy is just a silly way of showing how morality is subjective.  In reality, he is a vegetarian and won't scold a stranger for eating a hamburger, but has pointed it out enough that I won't eat beef in front if him.

If we assume that all morality is subjective (and it very well might be but I don't think so), why have such a view on any moral topics? How arrogant would one be to think they have "insight" into something that they don't believe exists - moral absolutes?

For instance, if a woman's right to choose is simply determined by the government and the government revokes that right, why have an opinion? The government simply made up the right and took it away. No big deal. Ultimately, its nothing more than what the government says. There are no rights except what the government gives or takes. The same can be said for racism, discrimination, genocide or any other moral issue.

If a Creator doesn't exist, I view morals like manners. A culture just made up somethings and another culture did the same thing. One might value human rights and the other prefers authoritarian rule. It's all good either way.

Who am I to say which is right or wrong since I have no more insight than they? The most rational view (in my humble opinion) is not have an opinion on moral issues. Indeed, it's probably best to not even trust my own morality in this case.

So for those that think morals are completely subjective, why do you trust your morality over another's?

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 23, 2019, 08:35:06 AM
By the way, I'm guessing most of you don't know that cows used to be consumed by Hindus back before 4th Century BC.  The theory about cows becoming sacred is partially because vegetarianism was spreading throughout India and that cows had become somewhat scarce and were needed for milk production. 

Thus sacred cows are often created out of necessity or common sense.  Cheers!

Interesting! My friend is a brahman and devout hindu  has a few interesting beliefs we've talked about. The whole cow analogy is just a silly way of showing how morality is subjective.  In reality, he is a vegetarian and won't scold a stranger for eating a hamburger, but has pointed it out enough that I won't eat beef in front if him.

If we assume that all morality is subjective (and it very well might be but I don't think so), why have such a view on any moral topics? How arrogant would one be to think they have "insight" into something that they don't believe exists - moral absolutes?

For instance, if a woman's right to choose is simply determined by the government and the government revokes that right, why have an opinion? The government simply made up the right and took it away. No big deal. Ultimately, its nothing more than what the government says. There are no rights except what the government gives or takes. The same can be said for racism, discrimination, genocide or any other moral issue.

If a Creator doesn't exist, I view morals like manners. A culture just made up somethings and another culture did the same thing. One might value human rights and the other prefers authoritarian rule. It's all good either way.

Who am I to say which is right or wrong since I have no more insight than they? The most rational view (in my humble opinion) is not have an opinion on moral issues. Indeed, it's probably best to not even trust my own morality in this case.

So for those that think morals are completely subjective, why do you trust your morality over another's?

Exactly! I don't trust my morals over someone else's. So in lieu of me forcing my moral authority on someone else, I am going to let the adult most affected by the situation make their own decision. Now I respect your morals and the morals of my Indian friend too. I am not going to eat beef in front of him; I feel like as a society we can pass some laws to prevent the infanticide scenarios some were bringing up earlier. I think those laws resemble the "point of viability" stipulations that exist today.   
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 09:04:44 AM
By the way, I'm guessing most of you don't know that cows used to be consumed by Hindus back before 4th Century BC.  The theory about cows becoming sacred is partially because vegetarianism was spreading throughout India and that cows had become somewhat scarce and were needed for milk production. 

Thus sacred cows are often created out of necessity or common sense.  Cheers!

Interesting! My friend is a brahman and devout hindu  has a few interesting beliefs we've talked about. The whole cow analogy is just a silly way of showing how morality is subjective.  In reality, he is a vegetarian and won't scold a stranger for eating a hamburger, but has pointed it out enough that I won't eat beef in front if him.

If we assume that all morality is subjective (and it very well might be but I don't think so), why have such a view on any moral topics? How arrogant would one be to think they have "insight" into something that they don't believe exists - moral absolutes?

For instance, if a woman's right to choose is simply determined by the government and the government revokes that right, why have an opinion? The government simply made up the right and took it away. No big deal. Ultimately, its nothing more than what the government says. There are no rights except what the government gives or takes. The same can be said for racism, discrimination, genocide or any other moral issue.

If a Creator doesn't exist, I view morals like manners. A culture just made up somethings and another culture did the same thing. One might value human rights and the other prefers authoritarian rule. It's all good either way.

Who am I to say which is right or wrong since I have no more insight than they? The most rational view (in my humble opinion) is not have an opinion on moral issues. Indeed, it's probably best to not even trust my own morality in this case.

So for those that think morals are completely subjective, why do you trust your morality over another's?

Exactly! I don't trust my morals over someone else's. So in lieu of me forcing my moral authority on someone else, I am going to let the adult most affected by the situation make their own decision. Now I respect your morals and the morals of my Indian friend too. I am not going to eat beef in front of him; I feel like as a society we can pass some laws to prevent the infanticide scenarios some were bringing up earlier. I think those laws resemble the "point of viability" stipulations that exist today.

Isn't your preference for allowing the adult most affected just a moral judgement by your own arbitrary standards?

Why does this adult have more say than the other parent? Why does this adult, who is not dying, get to determine the life of someone who is completely innocent?

Since your premise is that all morality is subjective, aren't these fair questions to ask? Aren't your morals (which you said you don't trust) actually making these decisions for you? If you don't trust them, how did you come to the current conclusions?

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 23, 2019, 09:34:07 AM
By the way, I'm guessing most of you don't know that cows used to be consumed by Hindus back before 4th Century BC.  The theory about cows becoming sacred is partially because vegetarianism was spreading throughout India and that cows had become somewhat scarce and were needed for milk production. 

Thus sacred cows are often created out of necessity or common sense.  Cheers!

Interesting! My friend is a brahman and devout hindu  has a few interesting beliefs we've talked about. The whole cow analogy is just a silly way of showing how morality is subjective.  In reality, he is a vegetarian and won't scold a stranger for eating a hamburger, but has pointed it out enough that I won't eat beef in front if him.

If we assume that all morality is subjective (and it very well might be but I don't think so), why have such a view on any moral topics? How arrogant would one be to think they have "insight" into something that they don't believe exists - moral absolutes?

For instance, if a woman's right to choose is simply determined by the government and the government revokes that right, why have an opinion? The government simply made up the right and took it away. No big deal. Ultimately, its nothing more than what the government says. There are no rights except what the government gives or takes. The same can be said for racism, discrimination, genocide or any other moral issue.

If a Creator doesn't exist, I view morals like manners. A culture just made up somethings and another culture did the same thing. One might value human rights and the other prefers authoritarian rule. It's all good either way.

Who am I to say which is right or wrong since I have no more insight than they? The most rational view (in my humble opinion) is not have an opinion on moral issues. Indeed, it's probably best to not even trust my own morality in this case.

So for those that think morals are completely subjective, why do you trust your morality over another's?

Exactly! I don't trust my morals over someone else's. So in lieu of me forcing my moral authority on someone else, I am going to let the adult most affected by the situation make their own decision. Now I respect your morals and the morals of my Indian friend too. I am not going to eat beef in front of him; I feel like as a society we can pass some laws to prevent the infanticide scenarios some were bringing up earlier. I think those laws resemble the "point of viability" stipulations that exist today.

Isn't your preference for allowing the adult most affected just a moral judgement by your own arbitrary standards?

Yes, in my moral judgement (arbitrary standards) I do not have the right to subject an adult to my own arbitrary standards.

Why does this adult have more say than the other parent? Why does this adult, who is not dying, get to determine the life of someone who is completely innocent?

Are you really going to make the argument the man and woman are sharing equal duty in this? Try commiserating with your wife (presumably) how difficult pregnancy and childbirth was for you.

The second part of your question goes back to my first answer. Her body, her rules.

Since your premise is that all morality is subjective, aren't these fair questions to ask? Aren't your morals (which you said you don't trust) actually making these decisions for you? If you don't trust them, how did you come to the current conclusions?

Refer to part 1. You feel that your belief in a creator has enlightened you to see absolute moral truth in the matter and as a absolute moral truth, you are obligated to force your belief on another human being. I don't think we are going to convince each other who is right. So I say again. What can we do to reduce/eliminate abortion if the moral argument is not going to work? Humans are pretty good at weighing cost-benefit and making an advantageous decision; it is a drive that goes much deeper than morals and I believe is the correct way in addressing this issue. 
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 23, 2019, 09:49:48 AM
By the way, I'm guessing most of you don't know that cows used to be consumed by Hindus back before 4th Century BC.  The theory about cows becoming sacred is partially because vegetarianism was spreading throughout India and that cows had become somewhat scarce and were needed for milk production. 

Thus sacred cows are often created out of necessity or common sense.  Cheers!

Interesting! My friend is a brahman and devout hindu  has a few interesting beliefs we've talked about. The whole cow analogy is just a silly way of showing how morality is subjective.  In reality, he is a vegetarian and won't scold a stranger for eating a hamburger, but has pointed it out enough that I won't eat beef in front if him.

If we assume that all morality is subjective (and it very well might be but I don't think so), why have such a view on any moral topics? How arrogant would one be to think they have "insight" into something that they don't believe exists - moral absolutes?

For instance, if a woman's right to choose is simply determined by the government and the government revokes that right, why have an opinion? The government simply made up the right and took it away. No big deal. Ultimately, its nothing more than what the government says. There are no rights except what the government gives or takes. The same can be said for racism, discrimination, genocide or any other moral issue.

If a Creator doesn't exist, I view morals like manners. A culture just made up somethings and another culture did the same thing. One might value human rights and the other prefers authoritarian rule. It's all good either way.

Who am I to say which is right or wrong since I have no more insight than they? The most rational view (in my humble opinion) is not have an opinion on moral issues. Indeed, it's probably best to not even trust my own morality in this case.

So for those that think morals are completely subjective, why do you trust your morality over another's?

To further this line of reasoning, if you don't believe in a God then you believe in materialism. The very nature of our existence and actions are mere biological processes. If we do not have true free will, w therefore cannot be held accountable for our actions. Watson and Crick talked on this.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Castanza on May 23, 2019, 09:53:38 AM
By the way, I'm guessing most of you don't know that cows used to be consumed by Hindus back before 4th Century BC.  The theory about cows becoming sacred is partially because vegetarianism was spreading throughout India and that cows had become somewhat scarce and were needed for milk production. 

Thus sacred cows are often created out of necessity or common sense.  Cheers!

Interesting! My friend is a brahman and devout hindu  has a few interesting beliefs we've talked about. The whole cow analogy is just a silly way of showing how morality is subjective.  In reality, he is a vegetarian and won't scold a stranger for eating a hamburger, but has pointed it out enough that I won't eat beef in front if him.

If we assume that all morality is subjective (and it very well might be but I don't think so), why have such a view on any moral topics? How arrogant would one be to think they have "insight" into something that they don't believe exists - moral absolutes?

For instance, if a woman's right to choose is simply determined by the government and the government revokes that right, why have an opinion? The government simply made up the right and took it away. No big deal. Ultimately, its nothing more than what the government says. There are no rights except what the government gives or takes. The same can be said for racism, discrimination, genocide or any other moral issue.

If a Creator doesn't exist, I view morals like manners. A culture just made up somethings and another culture did the same thing. One might value human rights and the other prefers authoritarian rule. It's all good either way.

Who am I to say which is right or wrong since I have no more insight than they? The most rational view (in my humble opinion) is not have an opinion on moral issues. Indeed, it's probably best to not even trust my own morality in this case.

So for those that think morals are completely subjective, why do you trust your morality over another's?

Exactly! I don't trust my morals over someone else's. So in lieu of me forcing my moral authority on someone else, I am going to let the adult most affected by the situation make their own decision. Now I respect your morals and the morals of my Indian friend too. I am not going to eat beef in front of him; I feel like as a society we can pass some laws to prevent the infanticide scenarios some were bringing up earlier. I think those laws resemble the "point of viability" stipulations that exist today.

If you don't trust your morals over someone else's then you should fall back on the safest default. In the case of abortion it would be saying no abortion because killing someone is potentially more morally wrong than forcing someone to carry a baby to term. In even more simple terms killing vs inconvenience.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 10:12:02 AM
By the way, I'm guessing most of you don't know that cows used to be consumed by Hindus back before 4th Century BC.  The theory about cows becoming sacred is partially because vegetarianism was spreading throughout India and that cows had become somewhat scarce and were needed for milk production. 

Thus sacred cows are often created out of necessity or common sense.  Cheers!

Interesting! My friend is a brahman and devout hindu  has a few interesting beliefs we've talked about. The whole cow analogy is just a silly way of showing how morality is subjective.  In reality, he is a vegetarian and won't scold a stranger for eating a hamburger, but has pointed it out enough that I won't eat beef in front if him.

If we assume that all morality is subjective (and it very well might be but I don't think so), why have such a view on any moral topics? How arrogant would one be to think they have "insight" into something that they don't believe exists - moral absolutes?

For instance, if a woman's right to choose is simply determined by the government and the government revokes that right, why have an opinion? The government simply made up the right and took it away. No big deal. Ultimately, its nothing more than what the government says. There are no rights except what the government gives or takes. The same can be said for racism, discrimination, genocide or any other moral issue.

If a Creator doesn't exist, I view morals like manners. A culture just made up somethings and another culture did the same thing. One might value human rights and the other prefers authoritarian rule. It's all good either way.

Who am I to say which is right or wrong since I have no more insight than they? The most rational view (in my humble opinion) is not have an opinion on moral issues. Indeed, it's probably best to not even trust my own morality in this case.

So for those that think morals are completely subjective, why do you trust your morality over another's?

Exactly! I don't trust my morals over someone else's. So in lieu of me forcing my moral authority on someone else, I am going to let the adult most affected by the situation make their own decision. Now I respect your morals and the morals of my Indian friend too. I am not going to eat beef in front of him; I feel like as a society we can pass some laws to prevent the infanticide scenarios some were bringing up earlier. I think those laws resemble the "point of viability" stipulations that exist today.

Isn't your preference for allowing the adult most affected just a moral judgement by your own arbitrary standards?

Yes, in my moral judgement (arbitrary standards) I do not have the right to subject an adult to my own arbitrary standards.

Why does this adult have more say than the other parent? Why does this adult, who is not dying, get to determine the life of someone who is completely innocent?

Are you really going to make the argument the man and woman are sharing equal duty in this? Try commiserating with your wife (presumably) how difficult pregnancy and childbirth was for you.

The second part of your question goes back to my first answer. Her body, her rules.

Since your premise is that all morality is subjective, aren't these fair questions to ask? Aren't your morals (which you said you don't trust) actually making these decisions for you? If you don't trust them, how did you come to the current conclusions?

Refer to part 1. You feel that your belief in a creator has enlightened you to see absolute moral truth in the matter and as a absolute moral truth, you are obligated to force your belief on another human being. I don't think we are going to convince each other who is right. So I say again. What can we do to reduce/eliminate abortion if the moral argument is not going to work? Humans are pretty good at weighing cost-benefit and making an advantageous decision; it is a drive that goes much deeper than morals and I believe is the correct way in addressing this issue.

Since your morality is arbitrary, do you feel that it is okay for another to subject their moral standards on another? After all, your feeling for whether or not to subject someone to something is just as valid as theirs, right?

So why wouldn't you say "yeah, I'm not really sure so do whatever you want. There are no moral truth claims!"? Anything less than that implies that you're trusting your morals...which you're saying you don't. It certainly seems like you are trusting them, doesn't it?

Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

Further, why shouldn't the government have total say? After all, all morality is arbitrary and subjective. Who knows better than our President and Congress?

Her body, her rules? Really, isn't she a citizen of a government? Shouldn't it really be "her body,  the government rules?"  Why does she have more moral authority than the government? I don't follow your logic here. Yes, I understand that its her body but I don't understand why that matters if one makes no moral judgement?

Let's say that my belief in God allows me to have more confidence that moral absolutes exist (which, is a fair assumption if God does exist). But what am I "forcing" on anyone? Am I "forcing" her to give birth? How am I doing that? Did I give her medication or use force in some other way? I fail to see why you think the pro-life people are "forcing" anything?

If morals are just subjective, I see no reason to want to reduce abortions or infanticides. I say that for a few reasons 1) human rights don't exist 2) the people that have abortions, on average, are going to be subpar parents 3) the world might be overpopulated now so why use up more resources for people who weren't wanted originally?
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 23, 2019, 11:21:21 AM

Isn't your preference for allowing the adult most affected just a moral judgement by your own arbitrary standards?

Yes, in my moral judgement (arbitrary standards) I do not have the right to subject an adult to my own arbitrary standards.

Why does this adult have more say than the other parent? Why does this adult, who is not dying, get to determine the life of someone who is completely innocent?

Are you really going to make the argument the man and woman are sharing equal duty in this? Try commiserating with your wife (presumably) how difficult pregnancy and childbirth was for you.

The second part of your question goes back to my first answer. Her body, her rules.

Since your premise is that all morality is subjective, aren't these fair questions to ask? Aren't your morals (which you said you don't trust) actually making these decisions for you? If you don't trust them, how did you come to the current conclusions?

Refer to part 1. You feel that your belief in a creator has enlightened you to see absolute moral truth in the matter and as a absolute moral truth, you are obligated to force your belief on another human being. I don't think we are going to convince each other who is right. So I say again. What can we do to reduce/eliminate abortion if the moral argument is not going to work? Humans are pretty good at weighing cost-benefit and making an advantageous decision; it is a drive that goes much deeper than morals and I believe is the correct way in addressing this issue.

Since your morality is arbitrary, do you feel that it is okay for another to subject their moral standards on another? After all, your feeling for whether or not to subject someone to something is just as valid as theirs, right?

So why wouldn't you say "yeah, I'm not really sure so do whatever you want. There are no moral truth claims!"? Anything less than that implies that you're trusting your morals...which you're saying you don't. It certainly seems like you are trusting them, doesn't it?

Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

Further, why shouldn't the government have total say? After all, all morality is arbitrary and subjective. Who knows better than our President and Congress?

Her body, her rules? Really, isn't she a citizen of a government? Shouldn't it really be "her body,  the government rules?"  Why does she have more moral authority than the government? I don't follow your logic here. Yes, I understand that its her body but I don't understand why that matters if one makes no moral judgement?

Let's say that my belief in God allows me to have more confidence that moral absolutes exist (which, is a fair assumption if God does exist). But what am I "forcing" on anyone? Am I "forcing" her to give birth? How am I doing that? Did I give her medication or use force in some other way? I fail to see why you think the pro-life people are "forcing" anything?

If morals are just subjective, I see no reason to want to reduce abortions or infanticides. I say that for a few reasons 1) human rights don't exist 2) the people that have abortions, on average, are going to be subpar parents 3) the world might be overpopulated now so why use up more resources for people who weren't wanted originally?

I am not saying morals do not exist. I am saying assuming moral authority and forcing that authority on another person is wrong.  "yeah, I'm not really sure so do whatever you want. There are no moral truth claims! as long as it isn't depriving someone else of their life, possessions, freedom etc." is what I am implying. 

Quote
Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

I would hope the two can have a conversation about their future plans and both offer equal input. The ultimate decision is with the pregnant woman as the primarily impacted party; again I would like you to take up this conversation with your wife and see who has more responsibility in this phase. The woman's decision to have the baby and force the unwilling father to pay for it sounds a lot like your belief we should force the unwilling mother to have the baby.   

Quote
Further, why shouldn't the government have total say? After all, all morality is arbitrary and subjective. Who knows better than our President and Congress?

Her body, her rules? Really, isn't she a citizen of a government? Shouldn't it really be "her body,  the government rules?"  Why does she have more moral authority than the government? I don't follow your logic here. Yes, I understand that its her body but I don't understand why that matters if one makes no moral judgement?

I would like the woman to have autonomy of her body. So back at you, it her body, your rules or "the governments rules" if this Alabama law stands.

This is really going in circles too much. Your belief is the baby inside the woman is sacred and should be afforded all human rights. The woman needs to carry the innocent human to term. The woman is a carrier, a vessel, and in this case, an unwilling host.

Quote
Let's say that my belief in God allows me to have more confidence that moral absolutes exist (which, is a fair assumption if God does exist). But what am I "forcing" on anyone? Am I "forcing" her to give birth? How am I doing that? Did I give her medication or use force in some other way? I fail to see why you think the pro-life people are "forcing" anything?

Yes, my understanding is you would like to take away all alternatives and force the carrier to to deliver the sacred baby to term and give birth.

Quote
If morals are just subjective, I see no reason to want to reduce abortions or infanticides. I say that for a few reasons 1) human rights don't exist 2) the people that have abortions, on average, are going to be subpar parents 3) the world might be overpopulated now so why use up more resources for people who weren't wanted originally?

Go back to 1. I believe there is a point where the baby becomes conscious and viable as a new human being and should be afforded all human rights; after that point the woman loses the rights over the sentient human inside of her. I believe we have some form of that today; laws that protect both the rights of a woman up to a certain point and the life of the new baby past that point. Any law that affords all rights to one or the other sounds barbaric to me - handmaid's tale or infanticide.
 
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 01:00:22 PM

Isn't your preference for allowing the adult most affected just a moral judgement by your own arbitrary standards?

Yes, in my moral judgement (arbitrary standards) I do not have the right to subject an adult to my own arbitrary standards.

Why does this adult have more say than the other parent? Why does this adult, who is not dying, get to determine the life of someone who is completely innocent?

Are you really going to make the argument the man and woman are sharing equal duty in this? Try commiserating with your wife (presumably) how difficult pregnancy and childbirth was for you.

The second part of your question goes back to my first answer. Her body, her rules.

Since your premise is that all morality is subjective, aren't these fair questions to ask? Aren't your morals (which you said you don't trust) actually making these decisions for you? If you don't trust them, how did you come to the current conclusions?

Refer to part 1. You feel that your belief in a creator has enlightened you to see absolute moral truth in the matter and as a absolute moral truth, you are obligated to force your belief on another human being. I don't think we are going to convince each other who is right. So I say again. What can we do to reduce/eliminate abortion if the moral argument is not going to work? Humans are pretty good at weighing cost-benefit and making an advantageous decision; it is a drive that goes much deeper than morals and I believe is the correct way in addressing this issue.

Since your morality is arbitrary, do you feel that it is okay for another to subject their moral standards on another? After all, your feeling for whether or not to subject someone to something is just as valid as theirs, right?

So why wouldn't you say "yeah, I'm not really sure so do whatever you want. There are no moral truth claims!"? Anything less than that implies that you're trusting your morals...which you're saying you don't. It certainly seems like you are trusting them, doesn't it?

Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

Further, why shouldn't the government have total say? After all, all morality is arbitrary and subjective. Who knows better than our President and Congress?

Her body, her rules? Really, isn't she a citizen of a government? Shouldn't it really be "her body,  the government rules?"  Why does she have more moral authority than the government? I don't follow your logic here. Yes, I understand that its her body but I don't understand why that matters if one makes no moral judgement?

Let's say that my belief in God allows me to have more confidence that moral absolutes exist (which, is a fair assumption if God does exist). But what am I "forcing" on anyone? Am I "forcing" her to give birth? How am I doing that? Did I give her medication or use force in some other way? I fail to see why you think the pro-life people are "forcing" anything?

If morals are just subjective, I see no reason to want to reduce abortions or infanticides. I say that for a few reasons 1) human rights don't exist 2) the people that have abortions, on average, are going to be subpar parents 3) the world might be overpopulated now so why use up more resources for people who weren't wanted originally?

I am not saying morals do not exist. I am saying assuming moral authority and forcing that authority on another person is wrong.  "yeah, I'm not really sure so do whatever you want. There are no moral truth claims! as long as it isn't depriving someone else of their life, possessions, freedom etc." is what I am implying. 

Quote
Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

I would hope the two can have a conversation about their future plans and both offer equal input. The ultimate decision is with the pregnant woman as the primarily impacted party; again I would like you to take up this conversation with your wife and see who has more responsibility in this phase. The woman's decision to have the baby and force the unwilling father to pay for it sounds a lot like your belief we should force the unwilling mother to have the baby.   

Quote
Further, why shouldn't the government have total say? After all, all morality is arbitrary and subjective. Who knows better than our President and Congress?

Her body, her rules? Really, isn't she a citizen of a government? Shouldn't it really be "her body,  the government rules?"  Why does she have more moral authority than the government? I don't follow your logic here. Yes, I understand that its her body but I don't understand why that matters if one makes no moral judgement?

I would like the woman to have autonomy of her body. So back at you, it her body, your rules or "the governments rules" if this Alabama law stands.

This is really going in circles too much. Your belief is the baby inside the woman is sacred and should be afforded all human rights. The woman needs to carry the innocent human to term. The woman is a carrier, a vessel, and in this case, an unwilling host.

Quote
Let's say that my belief in God allows me to have more confidence that moral absolutes exist (which, is a fair assumption if God does exist). But what am I "forcing" on anyone? Am I "forcing" her to give birth? How am I doing that? Did I give her medication or use force in some other way? I fail to see why you think the pro-life people are "forcing" anything?

Yes, my understanding is you would like to take away all alternatives and force the carrier to to deliver the sacred baby to term and give birth.

Quote
If morals are just subjective, I see no reason to want to reduce abortions or infanticides. I say that for a few reasons 1) human rights don't exist 2) the people that have abortions, on average, are going to be subpar parents 3) the world might be overpopulated now so why use up more resources for people who weren't wanted originally?

Go back to 1. I believe there is a point where the baby becomes conscious and viable as a new human being and should be afforded all human rights; after that point the woman loses the rights over the sentient human inside of her. I believe we have some form of that today; laws that protect both the rights of a woman up to a certain point and the life of the new baby past that point. Any law that affords all rights to one or the other sounds barbaric to me - handmaid's tale or infanticide.
 

Let's get a few things straight to make sure we're on the same page.

We can agree that morals exist, yes? The question is - is it arbitrary (subjective) or absolute. If morals are arbitrary (and therefore just made up), I have no good reason to trust them or value them. I liken morality to manners (just something that someone just made up someday because they felt like it). It has no real basis in reality - except as a social nicety if someone is vain enough to value those things).

If you're right and morality is subjective - any moral truth claims are invalid since there is no moral truth. You're only culturally conditioned to think that depriving someone of their life, possessions, etc is "bad." Besides, why would you force your beliefs on them if they want to take someone's life or possessions? If you believe that depriving people of these things is morally "wrong", aren't you trusting your morality? By the way, isn't abortion depriving someone of their life?  If not, what's happening?

If God doesn't exist, morals are similar to manners. I may find something gross or they might but it's no big deal either way. As a result, I might be socially conditioned to think putting my elbows on the table is "bad" but it's actually neutral.

If this is all true, we're all just way too emotionally attached to morality. If someone wants to "force" someone to have a baby or if someone wants to "force" environmental standards or "force" people to do charity work or "force" them to kill their friend or "force" someone to not take someone's else possessions. It's all good.

All that is just subjective nonsense so its irrational to have an opinion on it. If I shouldn't get mad when manners are violated, why should I get angry when morality is violated? They made up their version of morality and I made up mine. Do I get made if someone is wearing another colored shirt than my favorite? Nope. You're acting like morality is more transcendent than this but...it's not if God doesn't exist.

For the woman being the primary impacted party, I don't agree with this at all. The primarily impacted party is the fetus - it's the one dying here. I don't see how this is even disputable. Further, if they choose to have the child, besides the 9 months and birth, the difference in impact can be very, very minimal between the two. Indeed, the father may be impacted more over the long term.

Again, no one is forcing the mother to do anything nor denying her rights over her own body. Do you feel the fetus is a separate human or the same as the mother? In my opinion, the fetus is not her own body. It may be in her body but it is not part of  her body. It has its own separate dna, is living, has its own feet, hands, heart etc. If one is going to say that the baby is "her" body or part of her, please explain to me how someone can have 2 unique forms of dna and 4 feet?  If the fetus is a different human from her body, why would you be okay with the mother taking its life?

If you claim that humanity is based on viability and consciousness, if a baby is born without consciousness (which happens) is it not human? If technology gets to a point where even a zygote is viable, are they human outside the womb but not inside?

Why do you think the baby should be afforded "all human rights" at any stage in the process? You seem to believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that God doesn't exist. If that's the case, how is this statement true? "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". No Creator, no endowed rights. Human rights are simply made up and don't actually exist in any absolute sense - like manners and morality or best color.

By the way, no one is forcing her to "deliver the sacred baby to term and give birth." Her body is doing that itself, is it not? You can force an abortion you can't "force" someone to carry a baby to term.  There is a big difference in forcing vs not allowing! You are simply not allowing them to hurt another human. Didn't you say that you were against that?  ;)





Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 23, 2019, 02:03:03 PM
Let's get a few things straight to make sure we're on the same page.

We can agree that morals exist, yes? The question is - is it arbitrary (subjective) or absolute. If morals are arbitrary (and therefore just made up), I have no good reason to trust them or value them. I liken morality to manners (just something that someone just made up someday because they felt like it). It has no real basis in reality - except as a social nicety if someone is vain enough to value those things).

Yes morals exist. Is a sacred cow arbitrary? I will agree they are absolute within a given culture.

If you're right and morality is subjective - any moral truth claims are invalid since there is no moral truth. You're only culturally conditioned to think that depriving someone of their life, possessions, etc is "bad." Besides, why would you force your beliefs on them if they want to take someone's life or possessions? If you believe that depriving people of these things is morally "wrong", aren't you trusting your morality? By the way, isn't abortion depriving someone of their life?  If not, what's happening?

If God doesn't exist, morals are similar to manners. I may find something gross or they might but it's no big deal either way. As a result, I might be socially conditioned to think putting my elbows on the table is "bad" but it's actually neutral.

If this is all true, we're all just way too emotionally attached to morality. If someone wants to "force" someone to have a baby or if someone wants to "force" environmental standards or "force" people to do charity work or "force" them to kill their friend or "force" someone to not take someone's else possessions. It's all good.

All that is just subjective nonsense so its irrational to have an opinion on it. If I shouldn't get mad when manners are violated, why should I get angry when morality is violated? They made up their version of morality and I made up mine. Do I get made if someone is wearing another colored shirt than my favorite? Nope. You're acting like morality is more transcendent than this but...it's not if God doesn't exist.

All the examples you gave are of harming other conscious sentient people, but I'll play along.

Let's take the environmental standards argument. A power plant releasing sulfur dioxide into the air is bad. It hurts people. Now the absolutist would say: SO2 hurts people and our environment, zero tolerance; you can't do it. A more moderate perspective would weigh the benefits of the SO2 producing power plant (cheap power) and the costs of that power (SO2) and would stipulate a scrubber to remove as much S02 as practicable while securing the cheap power source.

Yes abortion is stopping a life. Absolutist: under no circumstances. Moderate: under some circumstances that weighs the rights of the woman and the rights of the baby.   

For the woman being the primary impacted party, I don't agree with this at all. The primarily impacted party is the fetus - it's the one dying here. I don't see how this is even disputable. Further, if they choose to have the child, besides the 9 months and birth, the difference in impact can be very, very minimal between the two. Indeed, the father may be impacted more over the long term.

With all due respect. This is horse shit. You obviously do not have children, or value the man's time spent at work (because he is more impacted over the long term?) more than the woman's time spent giving care.

Again, no one is forcing the mother to do anything nor denying her rights over her own body. Do you feel the fetus is a separate human or the same as the mother? In my opinion, the fetus is not her own body. It may be in her body but it is not part of  her body. It has its own separate dna, is living, has its own feet, hands, heart etc. If one is going to say that the baby is "her" body or part of her, please explain to me how someone can have 2 unique forms of dna and 4 feet?  If the fetus is a different human from her body, why would you be okay with the mother taking its life?

Refer to the discussion of weighing the woman's rights against the baby's.

If you claim that humanity is based on viability and consciousness, if a baby is born without consciousness (which happens) is it not human? If technology gets to a point where even a zygote is viable, are they human outside the womb but not inside?

Then all the baby's that would have been aborted can be safely born in the lab and adopted by loving parents who want them. The woman will not have to carry the baby and give birth. I think that would be a great compromise.

No, not if there is no brain activity or consciousness other than required to maintain bodily function. Human DNA and form yes.   

Why do you think the baby should be afforded "all human rights" at any stage in the process? You seem to believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that God doesn't exist. If that's the case, how is this statement true? "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". No Creator, no endowed rights. Human rights are simply made up and don't actually exist in any absolute sense - like manners and morality or best color.

I believe in a creator. I just don't believe they are particularly interested in day to day going on of the world. Me trying to understand and interpret Gods will is like me trying to teach calculus to my dog. 

By the way, no one is forcing her to "deliver the sacred baby to term and give birth." Her body is doing that itself, is it not? You can force an abortion you can't "force" someone to carry a baby to term.  There is a big difference in forcing vs not allowing! You are simply not allowing them to hurt another human. Didn't you say that you were against that?  ;)
LOL. That is rich. By denying a diabetic insulin I am not killing them; they just naturally fell into a coma... You could have summed this all up quite succinctly and just replied "The handmaid's tale has it right!"
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 24, 2019, 06:09:24 AM
Let's get a few things straight to make sure we're on the same page.

We can agree that morals exist, yes? The question is - is it arbitrary (subjective) or absolute. If morals are arbitrary (and therefore just made up), I have no good reason to trust them or value them. I liken morality to manners (just something that someone just made up someday because they felt like it). It has no real basis in reality - except as a social nicety if someone is vain enough to value those things).

Yes morals exist. Is a sacred cow arbitrary? I will agree they are absolute within a given culture.

If you're right and morality is subjective - any moral truth claims are invalid since there is no moral truth. You're only culturally conditioned to think that depriving someone of their life, possessions, etc is "bad." Besides, why would you force your beliefs on them if they want to take someone's life or possessions? If you believe that depriving people of these things is morally "wrong", aren't you trusting your morality? By the way, isn't abortion depriving someone of their life?  If not, what's happening?

If God doesn't exist, morals are similar to manners. I may find something gross or they might but it's no big deal either way. As a result, I might be socially conditioned to think putting my elbows on the table is "bad" but it's actually neutral.

If this is all true, we're all just way too emotionally attached to morality. If someone wants to "force" someone to have a baby or if someone wants to "force" environmental standards or "force" people to do charity work or "force" them to kill their friend or "force" someone to not take someone's else possessions. It's all good.

All that is just subjective nonsense so its irrational to have an opinion on it. If I shouldn't get mad when manners are violated, why should I get angry when morality is violated? They made up their version of morality and I made up mine. Do I get made if someone is wearing another colored shirt than my favorite? Nope. You're acting like morality is more transcendent than this but...it's not if God doesn't exist.

All the examples you gave are of harming other conscious sentient people, but I'll play along.

Let's take the environmental standards argument. A power plant releasing sulfur dioxide into the air is bad. It hurts people. Now the absolutist would say: SO2 hurts people and our environment, zero tolerance; you can't do it. A more moderate perspective would weigh the benefits of the SO2 producing power plant (cheap power) and the costs of that power (SO2) and would stipulate a scrubber to remove as much S02 as practicable while securing the cheap power source.

Yes abortion is stopping a life. Absolutist: under no circumstances. Moderate: under some circumstances that weighs the rights of the woman and the rights of the baby.   

For the woman being the primary impacted party, I don't agree with this at all. The primarily impacted party is the fetus - it's the one dying here. I don't see how this is even disputable. Further, if they choose to have the child, besides the 9 months and birth, the difference in impact can be very, very minimal between the two. Indeed, the father may be impacted more over the long term.

With all due respect. This is horse shit. You obviously do not have children, or value the man's time spent at work (because he is more impacted over the long term?) more than the woman's time spent giving care.

Again, no one is forcing the mother to do anything nor denying her rights over her own body. Do you feel the fetus is a separate human or the same as the mother? In my opinion, the fetus is not her own body. It may be in her body but it is not part of  her body. It has its own separate dna, is living, has its own feet, hands, heart etc. If one is going to say that the baby is "her" body or part of her, please explain to me how someone can have 2 unique forms of dna and 4 feet?  If the fetus is a different human from her body, why would you be okay with the mother taking its life?

Refer to the discussion of weighing the woman's rights against the baby's.

If you claim that humanity is based on viability and consciousness, if a baby is born without consciousness (which happens) is it not human? If technology gets to a point where even a zygote is viable, are they human outside the womb but not inside?

Then all the baby's that would have been aborted can be safely born in the lab and adopted by loving parents who want them. The woman will not have to carry the baby and give birth. I think that would be a great compromise.

No, not if there is no brain activity or consciousness other than required to maintain bodily function. Human DNA and form yes.   

Why do you think the baby should be afforded "all human rights" at any stage in the process? You seem to believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that God doesn't exist. If that's the case, how is this statement true? "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". No Creator, no endowed rights. Human rights are simply made up and don't actually exist in any absolute sense - like manners and morality or best color.

I believe in a creator. I just don't believe they are particularly interested in day to day going on of the world. Me trying to understand and interpret Gods will is like me trying to teach calculus to my dog. 

By the way, no one is forcing her to "deliver the sacred baby to term and give birth." Her body is doing that itself, is it not? You can force an abortion you can't "force" someone to carry a baby to term.  There is a big difference in forcing vs not allowing! You are simply not allowing them to hurt another human. Didn't you say that you were against that?  ;)
LOL. That is rich. By denying a diabetic insulin I am not killing them; they just naturally fell into a coma... You could have summed this all up quite succinctly and just replied "The handmaid's tale has it right!"


Morality is not absolute if it depends on culture. Does math depend on culture? Absolutes spread across cultures. That's why they are "absolute." I'll say the sacred cow is arbitrary if the religion/culture changed it at one time or if many, many people don't follow it.

The harming of conscious, sentient people does not matter. Plenty of other animals kill each other on earth. Why are we any different? We just evolved in different way. Our ways are not superior.

So why do the "rights" of a woman, trauma of pregnancy inconvenience of pregnancy - that she voluntarily chose, outweigh the life of a fetus?  Keep in mind we're not weight the life and death of the mother against the life and death of the child - we're weighing the trauma and inconvenience of pregnancy and taking care of that baby. In what other areas of life does inconvenience trump life? If a father is drunk at home and is like "I need more beer". He then packs his son up in the car, while intoxicated and gets into an accident. The son ends up being killed but the father survives. The father knew the risk of driving drunk but did it anyway. Should he not go to jail? Is this fair? The son (or fetus) had no say in the matter. The father (or mother) through drinking and driving (or intercourse) knew the risk. Now, this isn't a perfect hypothetical because intercourse isn't illegal but drunk driving is...but should we be telling the man what he can or can't do to his own body? He's not getting anyone else drunk here! The man drinking isn't the issue - him killing an innocent human is.

Would you want your life to end if a woman didn't want to deal with the trauma of giving birth? You would have no control - just like the fetus. The only difference is the random woman is not your mother - which makes the mother killing the fetus worse.

So human dna makes a human and the form of a human? So you would be in favor of not aborting after 8 weeks? That meets both of those criteria.

You are not killing someone by denying them insulin. You are not helping them live, yes. But certainly not killing them. Do you get arrested for murder if you had one dose of insulin left and you and two people are about to die without it?

So you would be considered a deist then. Someone who believes in God but that God doesn't interact with the world. Why would God use up his valuable time to create people then? Indeed, there is a natural longing for this absentee deity. Seems a little strange, doesn't it? I look at trying to understand God's will through a combination of a couple things, like prayer and using logic and reason. If one prays, God does lead the heart in a certain direction. However, logic and reason also help guide.

Actually, I have 2 young children.  I can also tell you, with absolute certainty, that my life has been more impacted. I took a much lower paying job to have more flexibility and more free time to take care of things. My oldest year old did not sleep through the night for 9 months and the second just started. Guess who was up with each of them virtually every night? My wife works in medicine so I spend way, way more time with them so that she's not killing people during the day. Kinda sexist to think that the man wouldn't be spending more time with the kids than than the woman, eh?  :P

By the way, with Handmaid's Tale, you realize that women are being actually forced to get pregnant, right? No one is arguing that women should be forced into getting pregnant - making the comparison inaccurate.

Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 24, 2019, 08:56:49 AM
Morality is not absolute if it depends on culture. Does math depend on culture? Absolutes spread across cultures. That's why they are "absolute." I'll say the sacred cow is arbitrary if the religion/culture changed it at one time or if many, many people don't follow it.

So if millions of people have considered cows sacred and it has a 2400 year history, it doesn't count if many many people don't follow it today? Wearing a burka as a woman is an absolute in Afghanistan because of the religion/culture. There are many "Christians" who don't follow their religion in the US, so is this christian belief an absolute?

The harming of conscious, sentient people does not matter. Plenty of other animals kill each other on earth. Why are we any different? We just evolved in different way. Our ways are not superior.

Gonna have to explain this one. Are you saying if there is no moral absolute then we are no better than animals and my feelings on not causing pain or killing another sentient person is therefore invalidated?

So why do the "rights" of a woman, trauma of pregnancy inconvenience of pregnancy - that she voluntarily chose, outweigh the life of a fetus?  Keep in mind we're not weight the life and death of the mother against the life and death of the child - we're weighing the trauma and inconvenience of pregnancy and taking care of that baby. In what other areas of life does inconvenience trump life? If a father is drunk at home and is like "I need more beer". He then packs his son up in the car, while intoxicated and gets into an accident. The son ends up being killed but the father survives. The father knew the risk of driving drunk but did it anyway. Should he not go to jail? Is this fair? The son (or fetus) had no say in the matter. The father (or mother) through drinking and driving (or intercourse) knew the risk. Now, this isn't a perfect hypothetical because intercourse isn't illegal but drunk driving is...but should we be telling the man what he can or can't do to his own body? He's not getting anyone else drunk here! The man drinking isn't the issue - him killing an innocent human is.

Up to a certain point of consciousness, yes. Her rights trump that of an unconscious fetus.

Would you want your life to end if a woman didn't want to deal with the trauma of giving birth? You would have no control - just like the fetus. The only difference is the random woman is not your mother - which makes the mother killing the fetus worse.

At the time I would have had no capacity to think, want, feel etc. so my opinion wouldn't count; the conscious thinking, wanting, feeling mother should have the right to make that call. If someone is unconscious do we ask them how they want to proceed or rely on an appointee? 

So human dna makes a human and the form of a human? So you would be in favor of not aborting after 8 weeks? That meets both of those criteria.

I think we rely on research to tell us when the fetus has some sort of consciousness or awareness.

You are not killing someone by denying them insulin. You are not helping them live, yes. But certainly not killing them. Do you get arrested for murder if you had one dose of insulin left and you and two people are about to die without it?

Don't make up a straw man argument. It isn't a you are them scenario. It is you have all the insulin and a diabetic needs it and you say "nope, none for you." Did you kill him or did he die of natural causes?

So you would be considered a deist then. Someone who believes in God but that God doesn't interact with the world. Why would God use up his valuable time to create people then? Indeed, there is a natural longing for this absentee deity. Seems a little strange, doesn't it? I look at trying to understand God's will through a combination of a couple things, like prayer and using logic and reason. If one prays, God does lead the heart in a certain direction. However, logic and reason also help guide.

I think you are a dog trying to learn calculus. To each his own.

Actually, I have 2 young children.  I can also tell you, with absolute certainty, that my life has been more impacted. I took a much lower paying job to have more flexibility and more free time to take care of things. My oldest year old did not sleep through the night for 9 months and the second just started. Guess who was up with each of them virtually every night? My wife works in medicine so I spend way, way more time with them so that she's not killing people during the day. Kinda sexist to think that the man wouldn't be spending more time with the kids than than the woman, eh?  :P

I think you said:

Quote
Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

Then:

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
For the woman being the primary impacted party, I don't agree with this at all. The primarily impacted party is the fetus - it's the one dying here. I don't see how this is even disputable. Further, if they choose to have the child, besides the 9 months and birth, the difference in impact can be very, very minimal between the two. Indeed, the father may be impacted more over the long term.

Yes "can be" minimal in your case. I thought you were continuing on about child support.

I would venture to guess the majority of cases where abortion is considered do not consist of a married couple, the mother who works in medicine, the father can take a much lower paying job to have flexibility to take care of the kids. I commend you for being a good father, but I think you are projecting your lifestyle onto others. I bet you both have paid time off, make more than 50k, are educated, nice house, two cars, plenty of food, vacations... All of those things sound like they can go in the pro's column to have kids and the majority of the population is not as fortunate as you. 

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
By the way, with Handmaid's Tale, you realize that women are being actually forced to get pregnant, right? No one is arguing that women should be forced into getting pregnant - making the comparison inaccurate.

Getting more to at your point of treating women as vessels for a higher cause.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 24, 2019, 10:37:29 AM
Morality is not absolute if it depends on culture. Does math depend on culture? Absolutes spread across cultures. That's why they are "absolute." I'll say the sacred cow is arbitrary if the religion/culture changed it at one time or if many, many people don't follow it.

So if millions of people have considered cows sacred and it has a 2400 year history, it doesn't count if many many people don't follow it today? Wearing a burka as a woman is an absolute in Afghanistan because of the religion/culture. There are many "Christians" who don't follow their religion in the US, so is this christian belief an absolute?

The harming of conscious, sentient people does not matter. Plenty of other animals kill each other on earth. Why are we any different? We just evolved in different way. Our ways are not superior.

Gonna have to explain this one. Are you saying if there is no moral absolute then we are no better than animals and my feelings on not causing pain or killing another sentient person is therefore invalidated?

So why do the "rights" of a woman, trauma of pregnancy inconvenience of pregnancy - that she voluntarily chose, outweigh the life of a fetus?  Keep in mind we're not weight the life and death of the mother against the life and death of the child - we're weighing the trauma and inconvenience of pregnancy and taking care of that baby. In what other areas of life does inconvenience trump life? If a father is drunk at home and is like "I need more beer". He then packs his son up in the car, while intoxicated and gets into an accident. The son ends up being killed but the father survives. The father knew the risk of driving drunk but did it anyway. Should he not go to jail? Is this fair? The son (or fetus) had no say in the matter. The father (or mother) through drinking and driving (or intercourse) knew the risk. Now, this isn't a perfect hypothetical because intercourse isn't illegal but drunk driving is...but should we be telling the man what he can or can't do to his own body? He's not getting anyone else drunk here! The man drinking isn't the issue - him killing an innocent human is.

Up to a certain point of consciousness, yes. Her rights trump that of an unconscious fetus.

Would you want your life to end if a woman didn't want to deal with the trauma of giving birth? You would have no control - just like the fetus. The only difference is the random woman is not your mother - which makes the mother killing the fetus worse.

At the time I would have had no capacity to think, want, feel etc. so my opinion wouldn't count; the conscious thinking, wanting, feeling mother should have the right to make that call. If someone is unconscious do we ask them how they want to proceed or rely on an appointee? 

So human dna makes a human and the form of a human? So you would be in favor of not aborting after 8 weeks? That meets both of those criteria.

I think we rely on research to tell us when the fetus has some sort of consciousness or awareness.

You are not killing someone by denying them insulin. You are not helping them live, yes. But certainly not killing them. Do you get arrested for murder if you had one dose of insulin left and you and two people are about to die without it?

Don't make up a straw man argument. It isn't a you are them scenario. It is you have all the insulin and a diabetic needs it and you say "nope, none for you." Did you kill him or did he die of natural causes?

So you would be considered a deist then. Someone who believes in God but that God doesn't interact with the world. Why would God use up his valuable time to create people then? Indeed, there is a natural longing for this absentee deity. Seems a little strange, doesn't it? I look at trying to understand God's will through a combination of a couple things, like prayer and using logic and reason. If one prays, God does lead the heart in a certain direction. However, logic and reason also help guide.

I think you are a dog trying to learn calculus. To each his own.

Actually, I have 2 young children.  I can also tell you, with absolute certainty, that my life has been more impacted. I took a much lower paying job to have more flexibility and more free time to take care of things. My oldest year old did not sleep through the night for 9 months and the second just started. Guess who was up with each of them virtually every night? My wife works in medicine so I spend way, way more time with them so that she's not killing people during the day. Kinda sexist to think that the man wouldn't be spending more time with the kids than than the woman, eh?  :P

I think you said:

Quote
Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

Then:

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
For the woman being the primary impacted party, I don't agree with this at all. The primarily impacted party is the fetus - it's the one dying here. I don't see how this is even disputable. Further, if they choose to have the child, besides the 9 months and birth, the difference in impact can be very, very minimal between the two. Indeed, the father may be impacted more over the long term.

Yes "can be" minimal in your case. I thought you were continuing on about child support.

I would venture to guess the majority of cases where abortion is considered do not consist of a married couple, the mother who works in medicine, the father can take a much lower paying job to have flexibility to take care of the kids. I commend you for being a good father, but I think you are projecting your lifestyle onto others. I bet you both have paid time off, make more than 50k, are educated, nice house, two cars, plenty of food, vacations... All of those things sound like they can go in the pro's column to have kids and the majority of the population is not as fortunate as you. 

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
By the way, with Handmaid's Tale, you realize that women are being actually forced to get pregnant, right? No one is arguing that women should be forced into getting pregnant - making the comparison inaccurate.

Getting more to at your point of treating women as vessels for a higher cause.

No, the opinion (or feeling) on if the cow is sacred is not absolute (with all due respect to the Hindus on the board). How many Christians do you know that don't think Jesus was crucified (indeed even most secular scholars believe this)? That is an absolute. It either happened or it didn't. It's either true or false and it's also objective. So by definition, it isn't subjective!  Someone's opinion on it is subjective - the event (or lack) is not.

Yes, I'm saying that if there are no moral absolutes we are no better than animals. In fact, we might be worse than animals because we're killing our planet! Your feelings aren't invalided. You feel what you feel. The truth of your feelings are invalidated though. If there is no higher power which guides our consciences then things are the same as randomly picking a favorite color - everyone's "feelings" are equally as valid. Yours, mine or the murderer down the street. Your feeling of moral superiority is simply an illusion. And you do feel that it's superior or you wouldn't have an opinion.

So, you're arbitrarily assigning "consciousness" as determining if one human is more valuable than another. Do you think some people are more valuable than others based on skin color (also arbitrary)? Whether someone has consciousness or can do basic math is largely dependent on their age. Why would you draw the line on whether one is human due to only their age (unless you're trying to justify death of another)? When you arbitrarily label which humans are human or not you start getting into eugenics. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood would be proud!

For the insulin part, if his diabetes killed him, he died of natural causes. Whether or not I had the medication is irrelevant. If I killed him, as you seem to indicate, why wouldn't I be in jail? In order to kill you have to be responsible for causing the death. I would not have done anything to cause it. Not giving medicine is not causing death. Maybe I wanted it to save it for a someone I knew? Did I not help save him? Yes but that is a big difference in killing someone. If you're in a building and a gunman comes in and you have 1 bulletproof vest, if you save it for yourself (regardless of reason), are you killing another person in the building?

I have no paid time off and make significantly less than $50,000 a year in wages. I agree that the majority of the population is not as fortunate as me though. However, regardless of one's situation in life, that does not make taking another's life okay.
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: Ross812 on May 24, 2019, 11:54:39 AM
Morality is not absolute if it depends on culture. Does math depend on culture? Absolutes spread across cultures. That's why they are "absolute." I'll say the sacred cow is arbitrary if the religion/culture changed it at one time or if many, many people don't follow it.

So if millions of people have considered cows sacred and it has a 2400 year history, it doesn't count if many many people don't follow it today? Wearing a burka as a woman is an absolute in Afghanistan because of the religion/culture. There are many "Christians" who don't follow their religion in the US, so is this christian belief an absolute?

The harming of conscious, sentient people does not matter. Plenty of other animals kill each other on earth. Why are we any different? We just evolved in different way. Our ways are not superior.

Gonna have to explain this one. Are you saying if there is no moral absolute then we are no better than animals and my feelings on not causing pain or killing another sentient person is therefore invalidated?

So why do the "rights" of a woman, trauma of pregnancy inconvenience of pregnancy - that she voluntarily chose, outweigh the life of a fetus?  Keep in mind we're not weight the life and death of the mother against the life and death of the child - we're weighing the trauma and inconvenience of pregnancy and taking care of that baby. In what other areas of life does inconvenience trump life? If a father is drunk at home and is like "I need more beer". He then packs his son up in the car, while intoxicated and gets into an accident. The son ends up being killed but the father survives. The father knew the risk of driving drunk but did it anyway. Should he not go to jail? Is this fair? The son (or fetus) had no say in the matter. The father (or mother) through drinking and driving (or intercourse) knew the risk. Now, this isn't a perfect hypothetical because intercourse isn't illegal but drunk driving is...but should we be telling the man what he can or can't do to his own body? He's not getting anyone else drunk here! The man drinking isn't the issue - him killing an innocent human is.

Up to a certain point of consciousness, yes. Her rights trump that of an unconscious fetus.

Would you want your life to end if a woman didn't want to deal with the trauma of giving birth? You would have no control - just like the fetus. The only difference is the random woman is not your mother - which makes the mother killing the fetus worse.

At the time I would have had no capacity to think, want, feel etc. so my opinion wouldn't count; the conscious thinking, wanting, feeling mother should have the right to make that call. If someone is unconscious do we ask them how they want to proceed or rely on an appointee? 

So human dna makes a human and the form of a human? So you would be in favor of not aborting after 8 weeks? That meets both of those criteria.

I think we rely on research to tell us when the fetus has some sort of consciousness or awareness.

You are not killing someone by denying them insulin. You are not helping them live, yes. But certainly not killing them. Do you get arrested for murder if you had one dose of insulin left and you and two people are about to die without it?

Don't make up a straw man argument. It isn't a you are them scenario. It is you have all the insulin and a diabetic needs it and you say "nope, none for you." Did you kill him or did he die of natural causes?

So you would be considered a deist then. Someone who believes in God but that God doesn't interact with the world. Why would God use up his valuable time to create people then? Indeed, there is a natural longing for this absentee deity. Seems a little strange, doesn't it? I look at trying to understand God's will through a combination of a couple things, like prayer and using logic and reason. If one prays, God does lead the heart in a certain direction. However, logic and reason also help guide.

I think you are a dog trying to learn calculus. To each his own.

Actually, I have 2 young children.  I can also tell you, with absolute certainty, that my life has been more impacted. I took a much lower paying job to have more flexibility and more free time to take care of things. My oldest year old did not sleep through the night for 9 months and the second just started. Guess who was up with each of them virtually every night? My wife works in medicine so I spend way, way more time with them so that she's not killing people during the day. Kinda sexist to think that the man wouldn't be spending more time with the kids than than the woman, eh?  :P

I think you said:

Quote
Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

Then:

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
For the woman being the primary impacted party, I don't agree with this at all. The primarily impacted party is the fetus - it's the one dying here. I don't see how this is even disputable. Further, if they choose to have the child, besides the 9 months and birth, the difference in impact can be very, very minimal between the two. Indeed, the father may be impacted more over the long term.

Yes "can be" minimal in your case. I thought you were continuing on about child support.

I would venture to guess the majority of cases where abortion is considered do not consist of a married couple, the mother who works in medicine, the father can take a much lower paying job to have flexibility to take care of the kids. I commend you for being a good father, but I think you are projecting your lifestyle onto others. I bet you both have paid time off, make more than 50k, are educated, nice house, two cars, plenty of food, vacations... All of those things sound like they can go in the pro's column to have kids and the majority of the population is not as fortunate as you. 

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
By the way, with Handmaid's Tale, you realize that women are being actually forced to get pregnant, right? No one is arguing that women should be forced into getting pregnant - making the comparison inaccurate.

Getting more to at your point of treating women as vessels for a higher cause.

No, the sacred cow is not absolute (with all due respect to the Hindus on the board). How many Christians do you know that don't think Jesus was crucified (indeed even most secular scholars believe this)? That is an absolute. It either happened or it didn't. It's either true or false and it's also objective. So by definition, it isn't subjective!

Yes, I'm saying that if there are no moral absolutes we are no better than animals. In fact, we might be worse than animals because we're killing our planet! Your feelings aren't invalided. You feel what you feel. The truth of your feelings are invalidated though. If there is no higher power which guides our consciences then things are the same as randomly picking a favorite color - everyone's "feelings" are equally as valid. Yours, mine or the murderer down the street. Your feeling of moral superiority is simply an illusion. And you do feel that it's superior or you wouldn't have an opinion.

So, you're arbitrarily assigning "consciousness" as determining if one human is more valuable than another. Do you think some people are more valuable than others based on skin color (also arbitrary)? Whether someone has consciousness or can do basic math is largely dependent on their age. Why would you draw the line on whether one is human due to only their age (unless you're trying to justify death of another)? When you arbitrarily label which humans are human or not you start getting into eugenics. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood would be proud!

For the insulin part, if his diabetes killed him, he died of natural causes. Whether or not I had the medication is irrelevant. If I killed him, as you seem to indicate, why wouldn't I be in jail? In order to kill you have to be responsible for causing the death. I would not have done anything to cause it. Not giving medicine is not causing death. Maybe I wanted it to save it for a someone I knew? Did I not help save him? Yes but that is a big difference in killing someone. If you're in a building and a gunman comes in and you have 1 bulletproof vest, if you save it for yourself (regardless of reason), are you killing another person in the building?

I have no paid time off and make significantly less than $50,000 a year in wages. I agree that the majority of the population is not as fortunate as me though. However, regardless of one's situation in life, that does not make taking another's life okay.

In my moral view, making the decision to deny a medicine or a procedure to someone and letting nature take its course is taking responsibility for that outcome.  I also believe there there is more to life than a complete genome. I have nothing to guide me but the concept of allowing individual freedom unless it encroaches on the freedom of another.

I proposed shifting the topic to discuss incentives and disincentives to give pregnant women control over their body while incentivising the outcome you and I both want.

5 pages of analogies from the podcast you posted earlier and it comes down to the belief you have divine moral authority on the subject and God has willed an outcome.

You cannot reason someone out of something they didn't reason into.
 
Title: Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
Post by: stahleyp on May 28, 2019, 09:05:47 AM
Morality is not absolute if it depends on culture. Does math depend on culture? Absolutes spread across cultures. That's why they are "absolute." I'll say the sacred cow is arbitrary if the religion/culture changed it at one time or if many, many people don't follow it.

So if millions of people have considered cows sacred and it has a 2400 year history, it doesn't count if many many people don't follow it today? Wearing a burka as a woman is an absolute in Afghanistan because of the religion/culture. There are many "Christians" who don't follow their religion in the US, so is this christian belief an absolute?

The harming of conscious, sentient people does not matter. Plenty of other animals kill each other on earth. Why are we any different? We just evolved in different way. Our ways are not superior.

Gonna have to explain this one. Are you saying if there is no moral absolute then we are no better than animals and my feelings on not causing pain or killing another sentient person is therefore invalidated?

So why do the "rights" of a woman, trauma of pregnancy inconvenience of pregnancy - that she voluntarily chose, outweigh the life of a fetus?  Keep in mind we're not weight the life and death of the mother against the life and death of the child - we're weighing the trauma and inconvenience of pregnancy and taking care of that baby. In what other areas of life does inconvenience trump life? If a father is drunk at home and is like "I need more beer". He then packs his son up in the car, while intoxicated and gets into an accident. The son ends up being killed but the father survives. The father knew the risk of driving drunk but did it anyway. Should he not go to jail? Is this fair? The son (or fetus) had no say in the matter. The father (or mother) through drinking and driving (or intercourse) knew the risk. Now, this isn't a perfect hypothetical because intercourse isn't illegal but drunk driving is...but should we be telling the man what he can or can't do to his own body? He's not getting anyone else drunk here! The man drinking isn't the issue - him killing an innocent human is.

Up to a certain point of consciousness, yes. Her rights trump that of an unconscious fetus.

Would you want your life to end if a woman didn't want to deal with the trauma of giving birth? You would have no control - just like the fetus. The only difference is the random woman is not your mother - which makes the mother killing the fetus worse.

At the time I would have had no capacity to think, want, feel etc. so my opinion wouldn't count; the conscious thinking, wanting, feeling mother should have the right to make that call. If someone is unconscious do we ask them how they want to proceed or rely on an appointee? 

So human dna makes a human and the form of a human? So you would be in favor of not aborting after 8 weeks? That meets both of those criteria.

I think we rely on research to tell us when the fetus has some sort of consciousness or awareness.

You are not killing someone by denying them insulin. You are not helping them live, yes. But certainly not killing them. Do you get arrested for murder if you had one dose of insulin left and you and two people are about to die without it?

Don't make up a straw man argument. It isn't a you are them scenario. It is you have all the insulin and a diabetic needs it and you say "nope, none for you." Did you kill him or did he die of natural causes?

So you would be considered a deist then. Someone who believes in God but that God doesn't interact with the world. Why would God use up his valuable time to create people then? Indeed, there is a natural longing for this absentee deity. Seems a little strange, doesn't it? I look at trying to understand God's will through a combination of a couple things, like prayer and using logic and reason. If one prays, God does lead the heart in a certain direction. However, logic and reason also help guide.

I think you are a dog trying to learn calculus. To each his own.

Actually, I have 2 young children.  I can also tell you, with absolute certainty, that my life has been more impacted. I took a much lower paying job to have more flexibility and more free time to take care of things. My oldest year old did not sleep through the night for 9 months and the second just started. Guess who was up with each of them virtually every night? My wife works in medicine so I spend way, way more time with them so that she's not killing people during the day. Kinda sexist to think that the man wouldn't be spending more time with the kids than than the woman, eh?  :P

I think you said:

Quote
Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

Then:

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
For the woman being the primary impacted party, I don't agree with this at all. The primarily impacted party is the fetus - it's the one dying here. I don't see how this is even disputable. Further, if they choose to have the child, besides the 9 months and birth, the difference in impact can be very, very minimal between the two. Indeed, the father may be impacted more over the long term.

Yes "can be" minimal in your case. I thought you were continuing on about child support.

I would venture to guess the majority of cases where abortion is considered do not consist of a married couple, the mother who works in medicine, the father can take a much lower paying job to have flexibility to take care of the kids. I commend you for being a good father, but I think you are projecting your lifestyle onto others. I bet you both have paid time off, make more than 50k, are educated, nice house, two cars, plenty of food, vacations... All of those things sound like they can go in the pro's column to have kids and the majority of the population is not as fortunate as you. 

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
By the way, with Handmaid's Tale, you realize that women are being actually forced to get pregnant, right? No one is arguing that women should be forced into getting pregnant - making the comparison inaccurate.

Getting more to at your point of treating women as vessels for a higher cause.

No, the sacred cow is not absolute (with all due respect to the Hindus on the board). How many Christians do you know that don't think Jesus was crucified (indeed even most secular scholars believe this)? That is an absolute. It either happened or it didn't. It's either true or false and it's also objective. So by definition, it isn't subjective!

Yes, I'm saying that if there are no moral absolutes we are no better than animals. In fact, we might be worse than animals because we're killing our planet! Your feelings aren't invalided. You feel what you feel. The truth of your feelings are invalidated though. If there is no higher power which guides our consciences then things are the same as randomly picking a favorite color - everyone's "feelings" are equally as valid. Yours, mine or the murderer down the street. Your feeling of moral superiority is simply an illusion. And you do feel that it's superior or you wouldn't have an opinion.

So, you're arbitrarily assigning "consciousness" as determining if one human is more valuable than another. Do you think some people are more valuable than others based on skin color (also arbitrary)? Whether someone has consciousness or can do basic math is largely dependent on their age. Why would you draw the line on whether one is human due to only their age (unless you're trying to justify death of another)? When you arbitrarily label which humans are human or not you start getting into eugenics. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood would be proud!

For the insulin part, if his diabetes killed him, he died of natural causes. Whether or not I had the medication is irrelevant. If I killed him, as you seem to indicate, why wouldn't I be in jail? In order to kill you have to be responsible for causing the death. I would not have done anything to cause it. Not giving medicine is not causing death. Maybe I wanted it to save it for a someone I knew? Did I not help save him? Yes but that is a big difference in killing someone. If you're in a building and a gunman comes in and you have 1 bulletproof vest, if you save it for yourself (regardless of reason), are you killing another person in the building?

I have no paid time off and make significantly less than $50,000 a year in wages. I agree that the majority of the population is not as fortunate as me though. However, regardless of one's situation in life, that does not make taking another's life okay.

In my moral view, making the decision to deny a medicine or a procedure to someone and letting nature take its course is taking responsibility for that outcome.  I also believe there there is more to life than a complete genome. I have nothing to guide me but the concept of allowing individual freedom unless it encroaches on the freedom of another.

I proposed shifting the topic to discuss incentives and disincentives to give pregnant women control over their body while incentivising the outcome you and I both want.

5 pages of analogies from the podcast you posted earlier and it comes down to the belief you have divine moral authority on the subject and God has willed an outcome.

You cannot reason someone out of something they didn't reason into.
 

Your moral view doesn't seem to be logical then. Let's say Person A and Person B were on a plane that crashed. Both had vials of insulin but Person B's were shattered and can't be used. They each only had enough for 1 day since it was supposed to be a quick plane ride.

We'll also assume that if each of these folks don't receive insulin within 24 hours they'll die. They heard a call on the radio that the search team expects to arrive on the island within 24-48 hours. Now, Person A had their last dose right before the plane took off so he should be good for about 24 hours or so. Soo...given that the search team could be delayed or incorrect with their timing, should Person A give the insulin to Person B? Is Person A "responsible" for Person B's death? Why would Person A risk his own life to save Person's B? Would Person A go to jail since he "killed" person B by your definition (assuming the search party arrived after he died)?

The concept that guides you is just made up by your culture! Some cultures value "honor" of the family over individual rights. Why is yours better? If you don't believe yours taps into something deeper, aren't their views just as valid?

I don't believe I have "divine moral authority." I believe my case is more logical and less discriminatory. I also believe that I might have more divine moral insight which is why I trust it more. I could be totally wrong though! But at least I have a reason to trust it! ;)

When you say "you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason into" who was that in reference to? Believe me, reason is what brought me to my current framework around abortion. I also asked if my thoughts were rational...and no one seemed to prove that wrong. However, myself and others have frequently pointed out the errors in logic with the pro-choice side.

Not reasoning is why I was pro-choice on a national level before. I'll admit, when I add those views, I hadn't thought through my opinion on the topic.