Abortion

[JoStories]

Your word salad isn't amusing. Nor would I employ terms like ROTFLMAO when talking about life and death issues! Please, Jesus, never let this man be a legislator or judge, for he has neither mercy nor wisdom.

Now that was uncalled for. He laughed at your opinion, which is completely his right. And then you think he can't set that aside in another capacity. Perhaps you should google the current governor we have in Maine to see just how childish and petulant a person can really be before comparing an opinion to real life behavior.

 

[Marisa]

Bold empty ad hominems?
How long before you threaten me with your gods wrath?

He's already told me god can heal me. So, I'm guess not long now?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Your question remains moot. Do people choose to get pregnant? Think carefully before you answer.

Choice is reliant on consent.

A person can consent to a date without consenting to sex.

A person can consent to marriage without consenting to sex.

A person can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy.

We can consent to sitting at a table for a card game, but dealing with the cards we have in hand (and the most immediate of which is happening inside our bodies) is how choice is determined for our very own selves.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thanks for your many thoughtful comments. I apologize for being away on a missions trip overseas and then I came home to have to travel to a funeral.

Choice is reliant on consent as mentioned, however, when one has, say, cancer (my aunt just died of it--it was her funeral) it was a choice to treat or not to treat the cancer, and using natural/alternative methods or chemo or a combination, etc. That choice has always remained (illegal or legal abortions are done in many places) but I would question the morality (and self-honesty) of certain choices.

Thanks.

 

[pro4life]

abortion:kill

 

[psychoslice]

abortion:kill

It does, but it also gives freedom.

 

[catch22]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.

So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body. Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."

Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

If the body rejects the pregnancy unbeknownst to the mother, then how would she be found at fault? How is this somehow a refuting point against the decision to end a life that would possibly otherwise flourish?

The issue is in the heart that leads to a decision to end life.

 

[McBell]

abortion:kill

Thank you Captain Obvious.

 

[columbus]

Premise: One should not be forced to enable life for another person.
No one shouldn't have to give up an organ (eg, kidney) or otherwise
have one's body appropriated.

From the above premise, the right to have an abortion would be deduced.

That premise I not true. Nobody has a right to total autonomy when they make choices that involve others.This is especially obvious when the others are extremely vulnerable and had absolutely no consent.

Procreation is unique amongst human choices. Two people can decide to do something that might involve another, or maybe not. But if the choice turns out to, the responsibility is quite large. Even if the decision was taken lightly, the quite predictable outcome is the creation of a new and unique human being. This is a very powerful ability and so is a big responsibility, IF ONE CHOOSES TO TAKE IT. But nobody is ever forced to take it. Exercising your autonomy before you're a parent I agree is the moral thing to do. Afterwards, you've given it up for what you got.

And it is really easy to tell that the country that put RoevWade doesn't believe in post-parenthood autonomy. Just try to tell the judge "I said I would pay for most of the abortion". See if that gets a guy off the hook for child support payments.

Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

That premise I not true.

I agree.
But neither is it not true.
It's simply a value which some people have, & others do not.

Nobody has a right to total autonomy when they make choices that involve others.This is especially obvious when the others are extremely vulnerable and had absolutely no consent.

I disagree.
Sometimes life will just suck for other people.
Their state doesn't give'm the right to take parts of me.

Procreation is unique amongst human choices. Two people can decide to do something that might involve another, or maybe not. But if the choice turns out to, the responsibility is quite large. Even if the decision was taken lightly, the quite predictable outcome is the creation of a new and unique human being. This is a very powerful ability and so is a big responsibility, IF ONE CHOOSES TO TAKE IT. But nobody is ever forced to take it. Exercising your autonomy before you're a parent I agree is the moral thing to do. Afterwards, you've given it up for what you got.

And it is really easy to tell that the country that put RoevWade doesn't believe in post-parenthood autonomy. Just try to tell the judge "I said I would pay for most of the abortion". See if that gets a guy off the hook for child support payments.
Tom

Roe V Wade doesn't "believe" in anything.
It's about the right to abortion, & that's it.
Parental obligations imposed by government are another matter.

 

[columbus]

I agree.
But neither is it not true.
It's simply a value which some people have, & others do not.

I disagree.
Sometimes life will just suck for other people.
Their state doesn't give'm the right to take parts of me.

Roe V Wade doesn't "believe" in anything.
It's about the right to abortion, & that's it.
Parental obligations imposed by government are another matter.

That is all extremely vague and irrelevant.
So let me ask you a question.

Does a competent adult have the right to involve someone else with their decision, and then kill them if things don't work out the way that they intended?

Tom

 

[columbus]

Roe V Wade doesn't "believe" in anything

I never said any anything like RoevWade believes in anything.
I am talking about what the country that implemented it has decided to do.
Tom

 

[columbus]

It's simply a value which some people have and some people do not,

For most of USA history plenty of people didn't think others had rights.
Women, immigrants, Catholics, blacks, gays... the list is endless.

Next on the agenda are the unborn.


I fully expect the same sort of resistance every other class of " non-persons" got.

Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

That is all extremely vague and irrelevant.

Vague?
I was pretty about my values.
Irrelevant?
Well, yes.....candidates I vote for never reach office.
Still, we're here to opine, & mine is no less relevant than anyone else's

So let me ask you a question.
Does a competent adult have the right to involve someone else with their decision, and then kill them if things don't work out the way that they intended?
Tom

Your question lacks sufficient information to give an answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never said any anything like RoevWade believes in anything.
I am talking about what the country that implemented it has decided to do.
Tom

I misread.

 

[Revoltingest]

For most of USA history plenty of people didn't think others had rights.
Women, immigrants, Catholics, blacks, gays... the list is endless.

Next on the agenda are the unborn.


I fully expect the same sort of resistance every other class of " non-persons" got.

Tom

Fetuses (feti?) won't ever have the same status as other groups which gained the full rights of people.
They're fundamentally different in several ways....
- They're still inside & entirely dependent upon the mother.
- They don't advocate for themselves.
- They don't do activities associated with many rights, eg, voting.
Consider something like the right to marry to gay folk.
Their exercising this right places no burden upon anyone else.
But to deny an abortion does place a burden upon the mother.
So there's the issue of either balancing rights, or one's rights trumping the other's.

I have broached the subject of granting at least one right to the unborn.
It's a conditional right.
If a fetus is brought to term, it has the right to be as free of birth defects as practical.
This would mean that no one (including the mother) has the right to harm the fetus-which-will-become-a-person.
There'll be messy arguments about things like the mother's right to get drunk.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Fetuses (feti?) won't ever have the same status as other groups which gained the full rights of people.
They're fundamentally different in several ways....
- They're still inside & entirely dependent upon the mother.
- They don't advocate for themselves.
- They don't do activities associated with many rights, eg, voting.
Consider something like the right to marry to gay folk.
Their exercising this right places no burden upon anyone else.
But to deny an abortion does place a burden upon the mother.
So there's the issue of either balancing rights, or one's rights trumping the other's.

I have broached the subject of granting at least one right to the unborn.
It's a conditional right.
If a fetus is brought to term, it has the right to be as free of birth defects as practical.
This would mean that no one (including the mother) has the right to harm the fetus-which-will-become-a-person.
There'll be messy arguments about things like the mother's right to get drunk.

"Fetuses (feti?) won't ever have the same status as other groups which gained the full rights of people."

They did where I live prior to Roe v. Wade! Consider how millennia of tradition/natural law/religious practice was turned over...

 

[Revoltingest]

"Fetuses (feti?) won't ever have the same status as other groups which gained the full rights of people."
They did where I live prior to Roe v. Wade! Consider how millennia of tradition/natural law/religious practice was turned over...

Aye, the fetus is certainly on the margins of personhood, which explains the turmoil in recognition vs denial of rights.
Even over the last several millennia, various cultures have been divided on the issue.
I don't claim to have the truth, just an opinion on legalization, & some views on aspects of abortion.

 

[Marisa]

"Fetuses (feti?) won't ever have the same status as other groups which gained the full rights of people."

They did where I live prior to Roe v. Wade! Consider how millennia of tradition/natural law/religious practice was turned over...

I have no interest in your tradition, "laws" of nature is a different conversation, and I couldn't care less how your religious practices are fairing in the modern world. I don't mean that as an insult, despite that I'm sure you'll take it as such. But this is your problem. Not everyone shares your religious beliefs, nor cares to be constrained by them. We all deserve the basic respect of being allowed to make our own choices based on OUR values, not yours.

 

[catch22]

I have no interest in your tradition, "laws" of nature is a different conversation, and I couldn't care less how your religious practices are fairing in the modern world. I don't mean that as an insult, despite that I'm sure you'll take it as such. But this is your problem. Not everyone shares your religious beliefs, nor cares to be constrained by them. We all deserve the basic respect of being allowed to make our own choices based on OUR values, not yours.