Restrictions on Abortion

Author: thett3

Posts

Total: 329
#151
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Legislation of citizenship is arbitrary,
perhaps technically "arbitrary" but there is a very broad and historical consensus that citizenship begins at birth (and upon receipt of a birth-certificate)
#152
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
and its being inside another person does not change that it can be done harm.
it's a matter of jurisdiction
#153
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
perhaps technically "arbitrary" but there is a very broad and historical consensus that citizenship begins at birth (and upon receipt of a birth-certificate)
Consensus can be influenced and changed. It can be done. (Not that I would argue for any government interference.)

it's a matter of jurisdiction
We've both analogized pregnancy at one point or another to being inside one's home. Now let me ask you: what would your position reflect if for example one were to maul and utterly batter someone before expelling them from one's home?
#154
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Now let me ask you: what would your position reflect if for example one were to maul and utterly batter someone before expelling them from one's home?
i actually knew an individual who killed a man with a steak knife

the killed man was an uninvited intruder and tried to run away

the individual i knew, chased the intruder down and stabbed them several times in the back, outside of their home

the police told my friend later that if the "suspect" had been killed inside the home, my friend would not have been charged with murder
#155
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
i actually knew an individual who killed a man with a steak knife

the killed man was an uninvited intruder and tried to run away

the individual i knew, chased the intruder down and stabbed them several times in the back, outside of their home

the police told my friend later that if the "suspect" had been killed inside the home, my friend would not have been charged with murder
But that's an "intruder." I purposefully left out this kind of description. Because the sperm cells which would then fertilize the ovum may not have entered by "intrusion."

I firmly believe that in one's home, and in one's body, one bears discretion in using any means to effectively remove "unwanted guests." That is not an endorsement, however, of using harm as a primary measure especially when uninitiated. There's a stark difference in beating the utter crap out of them before showing them out, and merely escorting them out. And yes there are methods of abortion which reflect both the former and the latter.
#156
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
may not have entered by "intrusion."
in most cases there is an "unexpected" aspect to the pregnancy, which strongly implies the sperm and subsequent blastocyst qualifies as "uninvited"

#157
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
in most cases there is an "unexpected" aspect to the pregnancy, which strongly implies the sperm and subsequent blastocyst qualifies as "uninvited"
I don't disagree with this description at all. The zygote/embryo/fetus may be "uninvited" or post facto "unwanted guest." But note in my previous posts, my objection is to the use of harm as the "primary" measure. The zygote/embryo/fetus may die anyway especially before viability, but that doesn't mean that methods which harm it before expelling it are justified, particularly when there are methods which don't require harm to be done to it.
#158
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
I say this without irony and being pro-choice myself (up to the second trimester), you're really doing well in this. I am curious whether you'd be willing to discuss with me whether abortion itself in the first 3 months should or shouldn't be allowed in terms of what's best for society.
#159
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Danielle
Well stated. The neural circuitry for pain in fetuses is immature. More importantly, the developmental processes necessary for the mindful experience of pain are not yet developed.  Proposals to inform women seeking abortions of the potential for pain in fetuses are not supported by evidence. Legal or clinical mandates for interventions to prevent such pain are scientifically unsound and may expose women to inappropriate interventions, risks, and distress. Avoiding a discussion of fetal pain with women requesting abortions is not misguided paternalism, but a sound policy based on good evidence that fetuses cannot experience pain.
#160
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
It's funny, part of the reason I made this thread is because I'm genuinely undecided on my position on abortion in very early pregnancy (before 10 weeks or so) but the responses from the pro-choice crowd have been so inhuman and unempathetic I'm moving rapidly to the extreme pro-life camp

If you think they're callous, try perusing threads on immigration which have made my stomach turn. The moral  posturing of the "pro life" crowd which  acknowledges that not all human beings are deserving of equal rights and protections under American law is so wild.

So are the cries about how bodily autonomy doesn't apply when other lives are at stake. These are the same people screaming bloody murder and threatening revolution over being "forced" to wear a tiny piece of cloth over their mouths, or get a shot in order to freely associate in certain venues, now lecturing about how women should be coerced to endure pregnancy 24/7 for nine months and give birth against their will under threat of murder charges.

Most who choose late term abortions are looking to avoid giving birth to stillborns, which is incredibly difficult and traumatic. I one million percent support abortion (for any reason) up to the point of fetal viability, and most likely up until childbirth which I'm still working out.

The law righteously provides a constitutional right to abortion. It's very hard for me to imagine a scenario in which compelling someone to give birth against their will seems like a legitimate function of the state, and even harder to imagine why an unborn person should have any rights at all.  

The visceral reaction against abortion is just  psychological conditioning.  The people screaming about 'dead babies' are willing to shrug off moral atrocities in many other contexts. The whole basis of their argument is an appeal to emotion.  Suggesting or even joking  that a presumed lack of empathy (by randos on an internet forum no less) is somehow a legitimate justification to disavow bodily autonomy is a douchey position at best, and a moral travesty at worst if and when that policy comes to fruition.

#161
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
The law righteously provides a constitutional right to abortion. It's very hard for me to imagine a scenario in which compelling someone to give birth against their will seems like a legitimate function of the state, and even harder to imagine why an unborn person should have any rights at all.  
Do you think the Congress has 2/3 support today to add a Constitutional amendment that has the words "abortion" or "personal autonomy" in it?

How about 75% of the local state legislatures?

#162
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Definitely not. And if Republicans win the House, Senate and WH (which they probably will) there will likely be a national ban. 
#163
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Danielle
You do realise that's a human being inside the womb, right? I'm just clarifying you realise it's actually killing of a human being, not some 'you have no rights' semantic type thing.

Would you support abortion far into pregnancy?
#164
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
God gives you a soul?

Biologic = soul ergo they are synonyms. God/Universe allows for existence of biologic/soul life, ergo, a sperm and egg each are a soul.

The fertilized egg is a more complex soul/biologic.  The more the cells divide the more complex the soul/biologic becomes.

When the fetus/baby is born out, and umbilchord is cut, the baby only is now and independent invidual, and when it in-spirits its first breath, it becomes a more complex biologic/soul.

Now that the life giving sustain from mothers umbilical cord has been cut the baby genetically is in search of a nipple for the new process of gathering nutrition via the mouth. Again a new complexity has begun.
 
fertilized egg { human } > travels to uterus/womb to implant on wall > 9 months of umbilical cord sustanance > fetus/baby ico is born out { via contractions of uterus } > cord is cut > in-spiration/in-spirited } into lungs begins { after passage way is cleared of mucus } > now we suckle our life away { yum yum }.

Lines-of-relationship complexity increase with brain at least until about 20 - 25 years of age.  Tho there is some evidence---?-- of new brain cells be created af ter that.

We do have evidence that some kinds of mushrooms cause new brain cells to be created.


#165
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes. I pointed out that not all human beings  have the same rights and protections under American law.  If someone is born outside of our borders for example, we pick and choose which rights of theirs we will recognize. The same goes for minors. Being born is a prerequisite to our constitutional rights. The 14th amendment starts out with "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..." 

I fully support abortion with no conditions until fetal viability, and most likely until childbirth. 

I don't really want to get sucked into a conversation on this site though; there's not much good faith discussion to be had. I just signed on to tease Wylted about OAN having to admit they lied about voter fraud but I guess he left the site. 
#166
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Definitely not. And if Republicans win the House, Senate and WH (which they probably will) there will likely be a national ban. 
Maybe, It kind of sucks that it's an easier legislative process for the government to take stuff away from the people than it is to protect people from the government.
#167
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Danielle
That is pretty disgusting to me, ngl.

I literally see no difference between killing an 8 month-in fetus or murdering a premature born baby... Do the math... Think about it.
#168
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
 The same goes for minors.
What constitutional rights are not afforded to minors? Which rights?

Being born is a prerequisite to our constitutional rights.
Probs has something to do with Jurisdiction in that an American constitution applies to American citizens. Otherwise we would be sending the world police outside our borders to protect everyone's rights. (which we do sometimes whenever we feel like it)
#169
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@RationalMadman
That is pretty disgusting to me, ngl.

I literally see no difference between killing an 8 month-in fetus or murdering a premature born baby... Do the math... Think about it.

Well one of them is born and therefore not dependent on living inside of another person's body that's unwilling to carry it, so there's that obvious distinction. But I understand your feelings on the matter. When you get pregnant I will fully support your choice to carry the pregnancy to term. In the meantime you will just have to deal with things you find unpalatable. In a free society we cannot jail everyone whose choices we disagree with, especially when nobody's rights are being violated.


#170
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
What constitutional rights are not afforded to minors? Which rights?
Several. States have laws that say minors can't get a tattoo. Prohibiting adults from getting tattoos would be a violation of the first amendment. There are more examples like this. Gender reassignment surgery is not legal in many states for those under age 18. Meanwhile the government prohibiting elective surgery for an adult would be unconstitutional. 

But I digress. What I actually said is that not all human beings have the same rights and protections under American law. Minors don't have the same rights as adults. People that are under arrest do not have the same rights as those not under arrest. People that were convicted of felonies do not have the same rights. People that are in comas do not have the same rights. People that are mentally handicapped do not have the same rights. 

The government can't ban abortion under a nonexistent "right to life" because fetuses have no rights. The government instead has to demonstrate a state interest in protecting the unborn, which is what Roe did in determining viability as the point in time in which the government's interest overrides personal autonomy. For most of my life I agreed with this threshold, but now I'm pretty sure they got it wrong. 


Probs has something to do with Jurisdiction in that an American constitution applies to American citizens. Otherwise we would be sending the world police outside our borders to protect everyone's rights. (which we do sometimes whenever we feel like it).
Yes, the point is that emphasizing a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life is not that strong of a legal argument against choice. 


#171
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Danielle
 When you get pregnant I will fully support your choice to carry the pregnancy to term. In the meantime you will just have to deal with things you find unpalatable. In a free society we cannot jail everyone whose choices we disagree with, especially when nobody's rights are being violated.
Rights are based on what society finds unpalatable in the first place. Your 'only women can talk on the matter' is total bullshit, I know plenty of women who see the fetus as a living human and who are disgusted at any talk of late-term abortion.

You don't speak for all women just because you can get pregnant.
#172
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
I don't think being unable to get a tattoo from a licensed tattooist where the punishment falls on the provider isn't exactly a free speech issue, but I get your point. 

What's more fundamental is recognizing just how many constitutional rights ARE provided to minors with personhood being the prerequisite. The arguments about abortion inevitably rest on the idea that a fetus can have the prerequisite of personhood bestowed by the State at some term of the pregnancy. This is a 2 edged sword though, as that would mean all the current constitutional rights Minors enjoy would apply to an unborn fetus, opening up much more potential abuses of the government in an effort to protect those rights.
#173
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@RationalMadman
Calm down. I never said "only women can have an opinion on the matter" nor would I ever try to speak for all women.

In a free society, it is not the place of some to impose their moral standards on others any more than is required for the society to reasonably function. The right to be left alone and free to do what we want (so long as nobody else's rights are being violated) is something our country values quite a bit and built into various aspects of our constitution. I don't care that anti-choicers are disgusted by abortion. Some people are disgusted by anal sex, but that doesn't mean those who choose to have it should be treated as criminals (see Lawrence v Texas).

It comes down to whether or not there is a legitimate state interest that can justify intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. Roe v Wade says that government interest in preventing abortion is realized upon fetal viability. I'm starting to see that there is likely never a justification to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. However it's something I have to think more about legally. For instance we have laws that discriminate to promote marriage based on government interest in child rearing, so there are some things I'm intellectually working through. But at the very least abortion should be legal until viability which seems obvious.  


#174
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
It would be ridiculous to treat fetuses as people under the law in terms of equal rights. In that case, would a woman who suffered a miscarriage be charged with involuntary manslaughter? Can we file habeas petitions on behalf of the illegally incarcerated fetus of every pregnant woman in custody? Are we going to start fighting for a fetus' right to own property and to vote? I just realized that I could have used voting as another example of rights that children don't have. 

But even if fetuses were considered persons under the law, I don't see a legitimate state interest that can justify such intrusion over people's bodies. We don't force people to donate blood, plasma or organs to those in need. Pregnancy is perhaps the most invasive thing someone could ever experience. This country was up in arms over a mask mandate on a 2 hour plane ride.  If the argument is that the state can force childbirth on the basis of  an interest in growing the population, does that mean there would be justification to compel women into becoming baby making machines Handmaid's Tale style should an interest ever arise? Scary stuff. 


#175
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Danielle
You are saying that slaughter of super young infantile members of human species is okay as long as you call it another term than 'murder' because of a loophole in Rights.

#176
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@RationalMadman
I think it's permissible to kill a fully grown adult human if it's living inside of another person's body that doesn't want it. A good percentage of the population believes it's permissible to kill a human just for walking on someone's property against their will let alone inhabiting their insides.

You should stop using dramatic words like "slaughter" to make up for the inability to articulate a better argument. 

#177
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@thett3
Restrictions on abortion stems from patriarchal religious fundamentalism  ---three Biblical based  religions---    attempting to control women in general and more specifically pregnant women.

This so disgusting and reminiscent of dark ages-like barbaric human behaviours. Orange is the new dark-age.

Humans have been,  still are and most likely, will  always be, disgusting barbarians. Its in the genes apparently.

Just switch of our empathy centers and allow the barbarians to come forward. 


#178
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Danielle
Slaughter is not dramatic, murder is actually what is should be called.

The dramatic one is you, pretending that the sacred right to slaughter somebody inside of a womb is infallible and unquestionable, moot to even challenge.
#179
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@RationalMadman
I never said there was a sacred right to slaughter someone you drama queen. Nor did I ever say that people shouldn't question abortion, nor did I ever say that only women can have an opinion on the matter, nor did I suggest that I speak for all women. Either you're struggling immensely to read what I wrote or you think being hyperbolic  is somehow going to move me.  It's not. Don't get yourself all worked up. 
#180
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
.ebuc....Just switch of our empathy centers and allow the barbarians to come forward...

Virtual rapist have too much time on their hands.  Sticking their nose into a pregnants womans bodily business, without her consent, helps with their boredom issues.

Basically their too lazy to consider complexities of circumstances that involve biology { complex }, society {  7.6 billion and rising }, ethics { pregnant woman vs organism of her body }, morality { empathy and space of pregnant woman } and truth { virtual rapists ego is the problem }.