Abortion: a fance to music distant and dissonant

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 87
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Some thoughts in regard to the current abortion case before the Supreme Court: Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization  from MS.

Progressives have the SCOTUS decision of Roe v. Wade [1974] interpreted by a dancing manipulation around its findings. 1 US Code, §8, to which Roe v. Wade, curiously, does not refer, legally defines a “person.” What does that say about the Roe v. Wade interpretation of 14th amendment privacy; a word the 14A does not include?   1 US Code, §8 describes a person as Homo sapiens, born alive, at any stage of development.The Latin classification,Homo sapiens,means, literally: wise man, or, human, as distinguished from other species of the genus, Homo.All three conditions must be held to claim personage. 

The first element of definition clearly distinguishes humans from any other life form, as if anything else could, or should, be nurtured in a human womb. 
The third describes the zygote [the fertilized egg], the embryo, [its subsequent multi-cell development], and the early-to-late-term fetus. 
The second element, emphasized for this discussion, is the core of the pro-abortion argument, whereas, all three support the pro-life argument. It is, by strict definition, “born alive,”that is abortion’s fundamental argument. Its opposite, stillborn,means that the organism, although born and although Homo sapiens,is dead tissue; therefore not a person. 

It will not be honest to use the pro/pro schism using the qualifier “choice” only because choice’s interpretation, opposing that of “life,” is abortion, and usually not some other alternative, such as adoption, or a mother/father/both-raised child. Nor will this argument entertain troubling aspects of the choice of abortion in the cases of incest, rape, or the danger to health of mother, child, or both. These are fraught with pitfalls on both sides of the argument too great to expand on here.

Allowing that no one, well-meaning, or not; not parent, not doctor, not cleric, not biological father, should assume to decide in the place of the pregnant female, it is a decision fraught with competing factions. They all must defer, ultimately, to the pregnant female unless she, herself, defers. That would, at least, uphold the Roe v. Wade interpretation of privacy.

“Born alive” means the organism is fully expelled from the mother’s body, alive, and regardless of the stage of development. Note that “viability” [meaning it is likely to survive outside of the womb even though in earlier stages of development] does not exist in 1 US Code, §8 verbiage.

However, one must take exception to the Roe v. Wade unspecified “person” argument because a criminal indictment may still be brought against a person who desecrates a corpse. Why shouldn’t its alternative also be criminal; the desecration of a pre-born, who would, if all else were equal and left to nature’s intent, be born alive? 
Moreover, a person who slays a pregnant woman is often charged with two counts of homicide by 2004’s Victims of Unborn Violence Act. Do these points of order strain the progressive Roe v. Wade interpretation, let alone that of 1 US Code, §8, of what defines a person? These extreme conditions would infer that the dead have certain rights that are shared as a sub-set of rights held by living persons. Should 1 US Code, §8, let along some aspects of Roe v. Wade, be clarified by more accurate legal definition? Or do we continue, blithely, blindly satisfied by precedent? In this non-lawyer’s opinion, precedent exists by virtue of poorly written law.

The hook abortionists hang on in 1 US Code, §8, if not by precedent, is that “born alive” means being fully expelled from the mother’s body, and still alive. If the zygote/embryo/fetus does not fully expel, it is not yet “born,” and is not yet a person. Its natural development to “viability,” let alone to full development, is terminated artificially, and satisfies the progressive argument because it does not yet meet the strict definition of birth. 

“Behold!” the progressive says, “abortion is, therefore, legal.” Some even expand the fetal development beyond viability to include full development, and even partial birth. New York State has just stepped over this line because New York conveniently does not define what it means by “the life and health of the mother,” let alone the fetus. With vague interpretation, a headache, let alone declared mental stress, is threatening to at least the mother. 

Other states are sure to follow. 

It is convoluted logic. Legally, it seems to be sound, but only because a person is not a person until born alive, according to 1 US Code, §8, specifically, and the Roe v. Wade decision by unwritten interpretation. But, what of the also legal Victims of Unborn Violence Act?
This single aspect of live birth is both the steps and the music of the progressive dance. Some progressives do know what they talk about and use the language of the law as written to their benefit. They dance around it like Gene Kelly, to music distant, and dissonant to some.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
You can see why Texas was against abortion for incest and rape. How else were they going to get new Trump voters.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
Always curious to me that Democrats favor abortion when at least 1/3 of the aborted would have been Democrats... and many of those who managed to survive act like they were.
Undefeatable
Undefeatable's avatar
Debates: 64
Posts: 126
1
6
11
Undefeatable's avatar
Undefeatable
1
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw
would *you* like to personally suffer the pain and discomfort of pregnancy, unable to give up, and personally give birth to the democrats?

I am not angry here, merely suggesting an insane situation that points out how absurd it is to force women to go through full term. Again, I am not the best at debating abortion, but the freedom argument is pretty hard to knock down.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
you misspelled fiance
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@Undefeatable
The "freedom" argument is extraordinarily easy to knock down because it is extraordinarily false. Check my debate with Seldiora for details. 
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
No. I misspelled dance.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
lol
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Undefeatable
Do you just pretend that one of the consequence of sex is the potential of pregnancy. It is a surety that artificial contraceptives are not 100% effective. It's like trying to do the sane thing repeatedly, expecting different results. If women do not want to get pregnant, but still want to have sex, there is a radical, but available solution. They have that freedom to decide. That they don't is the fault of people who oppose abortion? Cheeky.What about their freedom?
Undefeatable
Undefeatable's avatar
Debates: 64
Posts: 126
1
6
11
Undefeatable's avatar
Undefeatable
1
6
11
-->
@MisterChris
@fauxlaw
What about WeakerEdge's statistic about a large proportion of people using abortions actually using contraceptive, meaning that it was a forced event? Not to mention whether the baby's life is certain (miscarriages, etc.)? In poor countries where adoption isn't an option, Mr. Chris's Violent Revolution debate gives an excellent argument why even the strong threat of life can allow for women to perform abortions. Again, I'm very open minded, but abortion seems to be winning for the pro-choice side. I can't have a good conscience and say "you can't abort your baby".
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Undefeatable
meaning that it was a forced event?
What was a forced event? Taking contraceptives, or that the sex was forced? Either way, it points to the too frequent failure of contraceptives to succeed at being contra-. Abortion statics just do not support that a high number of abortions are due to forced sex. Yes, it happens, but very low numbers compared to women who pull the trigger on abortion simply because they do not want to be pregnant, but were willing to be sexually active. With freedom comes responsibility.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Undefeatable
What about WeakerEdge's statistic about a large proportion of people using abortions actually using contraceptive, meaning that it was a forced event?

Not to mention whether the baby's life is certain (miscarriages, etc.)? In poor countries where adoption isn't an option
Using contraception by no means alleviates the moral responsibility one has for the child they created. Consider the following. 

If I put my 5 year old child into a forest and equiped them with the necessary tools to survive, and surprise surprise, they die, could I reasonably say "oh well, I did my best to lower the chances of their death"? The following is the scenario next to what you are asserting. 

p1 Using contraceptions means that I have lowered the chances of having a child, which means that in the unlikelier situation that I have a child, I hold no moral responsibility. 

c1 IF I use contraception THEN abortion isn't wrong 

p1 Giving my child necessary tools to survive in a jungle means that I have lowered the chances of them dying, which means that in the unlikelier situation that my child dies, I hold no moral responsibility. 

c1 IF I give my child necessary tools to survive THEN leaving my child stranded is not wrong

Moreover, I think that introducing women's rights into the picture of abortion is completely unnecessary, especially at the stage where abortion has not been defined.  IF abortion is murder then we can conclude that women's rights do not extend to murder, which means that we can conclude that abortion. It seems, the core of the debate shouldn't be what the rights of women are, but what abortion actually is. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
@fauxlaw
It's been a while since the old A issue reared its head.

Nothing's changed though.

Some for, some against, on the basis of varying  ideology....As ever...As everything.

Right and Wrong...Concepts derived of varying ideology....As ever.

Somebody v Somebody as ever.


All infused with hypocrisy....As ever.

Cynicism as ever.
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
I haven't seen a woman here yet, either. It's hardly sporting. 
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
It is convoluted logic. Legally, it seems to be sound, but only because a person is not a person until born alive, according to 1 US Code, §8, specifically, and the Roe v. Wade decision by unwritten interpretation. But, what of the also legal Victims of Unborn Violence Act?
I think you are making it much more complicated than it needs to be. Whether the unborn (zygote, embryo, fetus) is a person or not, there is no "right" to use the body of another against their will.

Keeping that in mind, its not difficult to see there is no conflict between Victims of unborn violence and Roe V. Wade - both address different aspects of consent.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Miscarriage, stillbirth and ectopic pregnancies kill more fetuses than abortions. Isn't God Pro-abortion?
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
I haven't seen a woman here yet, either. It's hardly sporting. 



Up until the fetus can exist outside the body on it's own (around 24 weeks and that is really early) abortion should be legal and safe. One, medical privacy. Two,  the unborn have not rights with the living do. Three, the mother is life support for the fetus. As we can terminate life support for a 'living' person with no quality of life left so pregnancy can be terminated before any 'quality of life' is established. 

The thing that irritates me about pro life advocates is their view forces morality onto others where pro choice allows for personal responsibility . 
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Let's grant the argument that someone is fully aware that even with a condom their is about a 15% that they can get pregnant (this is the high end by the way), do you also believe that someone getting rear-ended in an intersection is at fault because they went on the road? Surely not - by getting on the road you don't "consent to getting into a crash" you consent to going somewhere, doing everything you can (i.e. following traffic laws) to not get into a wreck. The same thing is applicable in regards to having sex, you having sex is not consent to having a child - that is an entirely different thing - no - you consented to having sex to feel good - doing everything you can to avoid having a child. The situations are analgous. 
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Bones
False equivocations much - we're talking about whether or not that mother consented to having a child - the situation of ALLOWING your child into the woods is an entirely different sort of action. 

Let's do a much more sound (and simple) syllogism
P1: If you support women not being able to abort fetuses that they obtained without their consent, then you support rape victims having to keep the fetus
P2: You support the former notion
CON: You therefore support the latter notion

Very simple, if p, then q; p; therefore q.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Furthermore, regardless of if the mother had taken contraceptives - as others have said - cutting off life support for people is entirely allowed.... and legal - see the thing here is that the life support machine, is somebodies body - you do not have a right to use someone's body as a life support machine. Sorry bud. Furthermore, and I say this again, fetus's don't have personhood. 
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You’re not Danielle.
 
Actually, I don't much care about this issue, at least so long as women aren't throwing fetuses down the street as they would their burning bras, in some protest of patriarchy. I don't have the self control fauxlaw espouses for one. I've even pictured myself the surgeon a time or two, giving rough surgery, where I had come to hate the girl or the thought of being attached to her. Those sort of fantasies are all well and good about a woman from time to time, but not a child, therefore life begins at birth.
 
I wonder, though: Is it fair, in your opinion, that a woman can pull the trigger on a pregnancy and then a man is just along for the ride, stuck to you, and stuck to child, paying all the way? What of personal responsibility here? Do you afford a man an opt out while we might still stick a fork in it, devils that we are?
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
jkjk
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
>Let's grant the argument that someone is fully aware that even with a condom their is about a 15% that they can get pregnant (this is the high end by the way), do you also believe that someone getting rear-ended in an intersection is at fault because they went on the road? Surely not - by getting on the road you don't "consent 

I'm getting mixed up here. She definitely consented to being rear-ended. 
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@badger
No but I am female. Thanks. I think as long as men are willing to give up parental rights and never speak to the woman or child again they can forgo being dad's or income for the child. What do you consider personal responsibility. A woman who has an abortion, a man who uses protection for his own sake or a man who gives up being a father to a born child? 
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@badger
Your joke is super great. Good job. 
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I can't argue with that at all. Danielle was more fun.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
As I've said, the incident of rape causing pregnancy is very low, therefore, by the numbers, the choice to engage sexual activity, still carrying the risk of pregnancy, in spite of artificial contraceptives, which have a far more percentage of failure than pregnancies by rape, means, in the end, that women who choose to take that risk have negated any right to their body, haven't they? Or, are you that married to do-overs?

Further, since a woman is biologically designed by nature to bear the function of the womb-nurture of children, and birthing those children as the means of continuation of the species, which nature can be halted by a simple procedure to prevent the potential of pregnancy permanently [a matter of freedom of choice, yeah?] why does a woman get to do-over her free choice to have sex with risk of pregnancy, which is one of her natural functions?

Moreover, the claim that a fetus is part of her body, a part she did not choose [except, she did, as demonstrated above, with little exception] is patently false.  Mother and fetus do not share DNA. The fetus, umbilical, placenta, amniotic sac and its fluid all share unique DNA differing from the mother. They do not even share blood. Only nutrients  pass through the blood barrier in the placenta. All of that fetal tissue is not the mother's body. Given her freedom of choice to have sex, she inherits the necessity of responsibility along with that choice.

And, finally, to further the argument that the fetal tissue is not part of her body [whence, therefore, her right to privacy over the existence of the fetus? - particularly since the abortion procedure is hardly a private occasion], when she comes to full term, and occasionally even before, nature begins the birthing process. Simply put, if the fetus is part of her body, why does the fetal tissue - all of it - fall out, separating itself from her body? Otherwise, my friend, when she opened her mouth, her tongue would fall out. It doesn't, because her tongue IS part of her body.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I believe the record for live birth [viability] is at 19 weeks. But, I'll agree, 24 weeks is not so rare anymore.

And, thanks for entering the discussion. It certainly needs your perspective.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
A non-sequitur, appeal to nature fallacy, and that's also patently wrong - choosing to have sex is not choosing to have a child bud, finally.... um is your argument that the heart isn't apart of someone's body cause it be distinguished and fall from the body... ya know, if you cut the connectors (kinda like you have to do with infants.. hmmm). 
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Who doesn't love a good flirt over an abortion debate.