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.