Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 6676 times)

Ross812

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 801
  • Move over KY
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.
96% Fixed Income CDs, Muni, Corporate Debt - 4% SPX Options


wachtwoord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1356
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 .... :(
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
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.

 
« Last Edit: May 18, 2019, 10:51:23 AM by stahleyp »
Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
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.
Paul

Castanza

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
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.



cubsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
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.

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
 We take comparatively no risk during pregnancy therefore should not have equal say in the matter.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | dis | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | relx | tap | tfsl | vz | wm

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
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?

Paul

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3210
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.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | dis | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | relx | tap | tfsl | vz | wm

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
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. ;)
Paul