Pro-Life by most really mean Pro-Birth

[crossfire]

I agree there is a minority of folks who think abortion as bad, but think it should be legal and the choice of the woman. Although it seems that most pro-choice people find nothi


I will admit that in a country (USA) where about half of the people think abortion should be legal in any circumstance, where those people have no moral objections to the practice, it will be diffcult to write laws that allow it in the rare circumstances but disallow it generally. I'm Ok with abortion if the mother's life is it risk. I'm also Ok with it if medical doctors are certain that the fetus is so damaged that it will not live after birth. And if the woman or girl was raped or is the victim of incest, an abortion may be the best choice. It would be difficult to enforce a rape provision, for example. Does the woman need to report the rape to the police? Does she need to present evidence? Does the doctor need to then receive authorization from the government? Can all of this happen before the woman is now 6 months pregnant, or can it happen in a few days? If these procedures are not in place and the law simply says "if the woman tells her doctor she was raped, that's all that's needed", would every woman who wants an abortion just say this with a wink wink to her doctor. I see this as problematic. The problem is that our society is so far off base on the morality of this issue that it makes legislation tough.

How much leeway are you willing to give the government in regards to access to your own personal medical records? Are you willing to allow non-medical politicians make your medical decisions for you, and have the power of government enforcing those decisions? How sound will those enforced medical mandates be with the limited information in your records they might have access to? What if one of these authorities decided to deny you access to medical treatment for a diagnosed medical condition simply because they didn't like your religion, politics, race, or gender?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

As long as pro-choice people accept biology, that at least gives pro-lifers and pro-choicers some sort of starting ground for continuing the conversation about the (im)moral nature of abortion and the legal nature of personhood.

Well it isn't a cantaloupe fetus, it is obviously a human fetus which makes it human, but is the fetus a being? I don't know and I don't think it is because it isn't yet a person. Is it a person with all the rights of a person? It depends on the mother

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I am going to throw this Golden Apple into this thread just because I want to shake it up some more: Let us say a man gets into a fight with a pregnant woman and he injures her womb so badly that she spontaneously aborts and loses the child that she really really wanted to have. What crime would you charge the man with?

 

[Shiranui117]

I am going to throw this Golden Apple into this thread just because I want to shake it up some more: Let us say a man gets into a fight with a pregnant woman and he injures her womb so badly that she spontaneously aborts and loses the child that she really really wanted to have. What crime would you charge the man with?

Murder for killing the baby and aggravated assault for hitting the woman. There are already laws on the books in several states about this.

Well it isn't a cantaloupe fetus, it is obviously a human fetus which makes it human, but is the fetus a being? I don't know and I don't think it is because it isn't yet a person. Is it a person with all the rights of a person? It depends on the mother

It's definitely a being. Whether it's a person or not depends on the courts or on if we decide to pass a Constitutional amendment defining when in the human life cycle a person gains the legal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Murder for killing the baby and aggravated assault for hitting the woman. There are already laws on the books in several states about this.


It's definitely a being. Whether it's a person or not depends on the courts or on if we decide to pass a Constitutional amendment defining when in the human life cycle a person gains the legal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Are they courts going to gestates said fetus? Are they going to bring it to term? Since the fetus is dependant on it's mother for it's life and safety, only she can confer and/or extend any rights and/or personhood to the fetus.

 

[Rival]

Nope. But I do believe they have to be brainwash if they kowtow to a uber-patriarchal religion like Mormonism which is known to be oppressive towards women.

Thousands of Mormon women seem to disagree with you. Some people just have a different idea of a good life. It's not really as far fetched as you seem to think.

 

[columbus]

How much leeway are you willing to give the government in regards to access to your own personal medical records? Are you willing to allow non-medical politicians make your medical decisions for you, and have the power of government enforcing those decisions? How sound will those enforced medical mandates be with the limited information in your records they might have access to? What if one of these authorities decided to deny you access to medical treatment for a diagnosed medical condition simply because they didn't like your religion, politics, race, or gender?

Once people have Chosen to become irresponsible parents, there aren't many good options left.

That's why I am so big on prevention. From sex ed and Planned Parenthood to serious sexual prudery.
If a competent adult is so ill prepared for the possible results of sex that they are willing to off their own offspring they have no right to have potentially fertile sex at all.
None.
Tom

 

[The Reverend Bob]

If a competent adult is so ill prepared for the possible results of sex that they are willing to off their own offspring they have no right to have potentially fertile sex at all

People make mistakes. And I don't think it is because they are competent.

 

[columbus]

People make mistakes. And I don't think it is because they are competent.

When you aren't competent to take responsibility for your Choice, then you don't have the right to exercise it.
Tom

 

[PureX]

To the contrary, biology does in fact identify individual members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, and it has clear definitions for when you have a new individual member of the human species: At conception. It's the philosophical and legal definitions of "human being" that get muddled and murky.

And rightly so. My arm is a living thing that is defined by it's human DNA. And yet it is not a "human being". Neither is a fetus just because it is alive and contains human DNA. There is more to a human being than these biological parameters. And we do not all agree at what that full criteria is, or when/how it becomes apparent. Which is why we do not all agree on what point in the gestation process of a fetus, it becomes a human being. Your opinion is just your opinion, as are everyone else's. Which is why I do not believe you should have the right to ignore a pregnant woman's opinion and force her to comply with your own. Or my own. Or anyone else's.

 

[Shiranui117]

And rightly so. My arm is a living thing that is defined by it's human DNA. And yet it is not a "human being". Neither is a fetus just because it is alive and contains human DNA. There is more to a human being than these biological parameters.

Technically, no, your arm is not a living thing, it is a part of a larger living thing--one component of a living system, we might say. A fetus, however, is its own independently functioning biological system, albeit in the developing stages--but then again, every living system is constantly developing and changing.

And we do not all agree at what that full criteria is, or when/how it becomes apparent. Which is why we do not all agree on what point in the gestation process of a fetus, it becomes a human being. Your opinion is just your opinion, as are everyone else's. Which is why I do not believe you should have the right to ignore a pregnant woman's opinion and force her to comply with your own. Or my own. Or anyone else's.

Biologically, it is absolutely clear when you have a human being--at conception. It is the ethical and legal definitions of when personhood begins that we run into disagreements, but then again I do suppose there are some people who choose to reject biological reality just as there are people who choose to reject the reality of human-influenced climate change. We can argue about when we decide to assign personhood to a human being. What is beyond question, however, is what constitutes a human being according to biology.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

When you aren't competent to take responsibility for your Choice, then you don't have the right to exercise it.
Tom

Well since men cause 100% of unwanted pregnancies maybe we should put the onus of responsibility on them instead of the woman or girl.

 

[columbus]

My arm is a living thing that is defined by it's human DNA. And yet it is not a "human being".

This makes about as much sense as a creationist pointing out to me that tigers and jaguars might be different, but they're of the same "kind".
Nonsense.
If you know a bit about elementary science.
Tom

 

[The Reverend Bob]

A fetus, however, is its own independently functioning biological system

Only when it is out of the womb. In utero it is dependent upon the mother.

 

[Shiranui117]

Only when it is out of the womb. In utero it is dependent upon the mother.

It is dependent on the mother for resources and a somewhat stable environment, sure, but from conception on, embryos/zygotes/fetuses engage in their own metabolic, growth and homeostatic processes that are not governed by the mother's biological systems. A mother has no control over the growth of the baby inside of her; that is handled solely by the baby's own development processes which it engages in.

 

[columbus]

Well since men cause 100% of unwanted pregnancies maybe we should put the onus of responsibility on them instead of the woman or girl.

This is painfully stupid.
When the man chooses the sex, and the woman doesn't, we have a word for that. Rape.
Most everyone, including me, agrees that rape is an ugly crime.
So what is your point?
Tom

 

[columbus]

Well since men cause 100% of unwanted pregnancies maybe we should put the onus of responsibility on them instead of the woman or girl.

Also.
I am totally good with putting the onus on men for supporting the mother throughout pregnancy and the child for about 2 decades.
That doesn't change the fact that only the mother can provide that most basic of human rights, a healthy gestation.
Tom

 

[PureX]

It is dependent on the mother for resources and a somewhat stable environment, sure, but from conception on, embryos/zygotes/fetuses engage in their own metabolic, growth and homeostatic processes that are not governed by the mother's biological systems. A mother has no control over the growth of the baby inside of her; that is handled solely by the baby's own development processes which it engages in.

The mother has already controlled these things through her DNA contribution. And it's a moot point anyway since the fetus cannot sustain it's own existence ... just like my arm can't.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

A mother has no control over the growth of the baby inside of her

If she doesn't take care of herself what happens to the fetus' health and growth?

This is painfully stupid.
When the man chooses the sex, and the woman doesn't, we have a word for that. Rape.
Most everyone, including me, agrees that rape is an ugly crime.
So what is your point?
Tom

I am not talking about rape. Men cause unwanted pregnancies by choosing to ejaculate into a woman's vagina, so why isn't the onus of responsibility put on him. If he keep it in his pants the woman or girl would have never gotten pregnant in the first place.

 

[columbus]

Men cause unwanted pregnancies by choosing to ejaculate into a woman's vagina, so why isn't the onus of responsibility put on him. If he keep it in his pants the woman or girl would have never gotten pregnant in the first place.

Because women aren't mindless chattel?
They are competent human beings, who can make choices for themselves?

How hard is this?
Tom

Eta ~ You're starting to remind me of a Bible literalist creationist.~