Should Abortion Be Made Illegal Based On The State You Live In?

[shmogie]

A problem is getting pro-lifers to face that even they don't accord a
fetus full status of a person. (Note that even the Bible places it lower
than a person.) They generally don't equate a fertilized egg with a
baby (one born). So there's an in-between period the don't address.
Add to this that many of them say its a person, yet if the mother has
been raped then the "baby" can be killed. It's very inconsistent.

I address it consistently, always.

A clump of non specialized cells cannot be taken as a person, except in a religious context.

My concern is the law.

So, I would support unlimited abortion in the first trimester.

After that time, when the baby is obviously a baby, I would exclude all abortions, except where serious physical harm or death, has become a likely possibility for the mother.

 

[Revoltingest]

I address it consistently, always.

Not everyone is inconsistent, but it does characterize the larger movement.

A clump of non specialized cells cannot be taken as a person, except in a religious context.

My concern is the law.

So, I would support unlimited abortion in the first trimester.

After that time, when the baby is obviously a baby, I would exclude all abortions, except where serious physical harm or death, has become a likely possibility for the mother.

You're addressing the same solution I see,
ie, that it's a political compromise.

 

[shmogie]

Considering that abortion are a method of birth control making them illegal will increase the number of children born in abusive, incompetant and/or impoverished household. What's better, fetus and zygotes who never grow to become babies or suffering children and parents? I would say the later is significantly worse both on a personal and social basis. Fetus and zygotes cannot suffer (at least not until the 16th week of development and even then before the 28th they cannot have human emotions), but babies and adults can.

What right do you have to allow the killing of a baby because of what might happen to them?

They might grow up to be murderers too, so what percentage of them should be killed?

Have you ever asked anyone who grew up in poverty and abuse if they would have preferred excruciating pain as they as a baby were being cut up, then death?

 

[shmogie]

Not everyone is inconsistent, but it does characterize the larger movement.

You're addressing the same solution I see,
ie, that it's a political compromise.

No, it is a reasonable solution based upon defining a person in law.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it is a reasonable solution based upon defining a person in law.

The definition is a political compromise.
Why?
Because definitions are designed to be useful,
but different groups have different uses.

 

[shmogie]

The definition is a political compromise.

OK

 

[epronovost]

Have you ever asked anyone who grew up in poverty and abuse if they would have preferred excruciating pain as they as a baby were being cut up, then death?

No...and fetus before the 16th week of pregnancy cannot feel pain and fetus before the 26th week of gestation don't have emotions (at least not in the human sense of the term). So truly your question doesn't make sense.

 

[epronovost]

How about we discuss the moral principle "It is wrong for human beings to choose death for other human beings."?
Perhaps you don't want to because you think that killing human beings is OK, if a human being interferes with your preferences?
Tom

Agreed, let's focus on this. I don't think human life should have a "fiat value". A "fiat value" would make it arbitrary and thus subject to change and fancy instead of something tangible. It also makes morality and ethics a purely abstract notion instead of an active practice. Human life has value because of certain key characteristics namely will, sensitivity and sociability. These are the thing that makes you, you. They are what define your identity has a person seperate and unique compared to all others. A clone of you isn't you because you have seperate will, sensitivity and sociability. Your human DNA doesn't make you a human being. The product of that human DNA does.

Every human being no matter their age and handicap (provided they aren't completely vegetative and even then) is capable of these three things. I believe a human being becomes "a Person" in other word something with a special value when they have the ability to develop such traits which would place it at birth, though I can extand this for the sake of prudence to the moment they develop the first one (sensitivity) which would be at 16th week of gestation. I'm okay with killing human tissue, not human being and a being require those three characteristics.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Nice thought.

But it's got nothing to do with the here and now. We already know from biological science, that nobody gets pregnant accidentally. Somebody chose something, or the pregnancy couldn't possibly have happened.
Tom

We are one of a few animals that have sex for pleasure. If we were supposed to have sex for procreation only, women would go into heat like most other female mammals.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe I expect that from heathen countries.

Funny, most women having abortions are Christian.

 

[columbus]

We are one of a few animals that have sex for pleasure. If we were supposed to have sex for procreation only, women would go into heat like most other female mammals.

True, but not particularly relevant.
We also know how to prevent pregnancy, if that's going to be such a huge disaster that we'll kill our offspring to avoid the responsibility.
Tom

 

[james bond]

I voted other, because it is not equality before the law if one may be legally murdered in one state, yet preserved in another.

The pre meditated murder of another is so egregious that it should be nationally banned after the first trimester.

From a legal perspective, it is difficult to make the case that a clump of non specialized cells is a person.

Around the end of the first trimester, the baby is obviously a person, and has the most basic of rights, the right to live.

Roe is a bizarre legal opinion. The only thing good about it is that it recognizes that with medical advancement regarding the baby, the decision might have to change.

We have reached that point. We now know things about the unborn that were impossible to know 50 years ago. How advanced they are in development neuorologically, how they feel pain, how they emote, all of this knowledge paints a totally different picture of the unborn child than in the days of Roe.

A picture that proves that killing the inconvenient unborn child is little different from murdering other inconvenient people, the mental or physically challenged, the homeless, the old.

The murder argument, especially as a planned (pre-meditated?) one is a difficult one. Previously, all we had was the Bible to go by, but now we have science defining life begins at conception. We had abortion which would fit the technical murder argument, but it was made legal for the reasons given. We have legal murder in society today as death penalty, or in times of war, or if the baby presents a danger to the mother. Or does an overpopulated nation need another baby? Yes, if the majority is old, or no if it isn't? We make laws for our society and so far I think much of the world has legalized abortion. We had ancient times where deformed babies or children were killed and tossed in a pit. We even had infantcide in ancient times or people who ate their babies or children in times of famine. Thus, there is a society rule that comes into play. At one time, this societal rule became so egregious that God destroyed everyone.

Today, times are different. I don't the answer to whether abortion is murder. How does a society punish itself? Or to just blame and punish the parents of an unwanted child isn't fair either.

We do have countries where abortion is illegal in terms of that is restricted -- https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...-abortion-is-illegal-under-most-circumstances. Some of these countries like Africa could become famine struck and we see children just die of starvation.

I think all we can do is continue to discuss and debate these matters. In the past, we didn't know from science whether life begins at conception, but I think now we are beginning to realize this as science backs up the Bible. There isn't an easy answer on this. What may be right for one situation may not be right for another.

 

[james bond]

As others may have already pointed out, it's telling that those who oppose abortion also tend to oppose things that would prevent abortion (sex ed, birth control, etc.). They also tend to oppose social programs that assist struggling mothers and/or their children. It seems that for most of them it's about control, not compassion.

Do you have a study on this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have a study on this?

He probably does. But even you must know that most antichoice people are very anti Planned Parenthood. Which ironically means that they are for more abortions.

 

[james bond]

The Bible does have some factual info in it, however, the above quote is not fact. And there is no reason to be bring religion into it in reference to governmental laws, unless you also want to include the Quran, Buddhist Canon, Satanic Bible, Rig Veda, etc.

I think you're picking and choosing what is fact based on your own views. The Bible is non-fiction and historical. What sources do you have to back up your reasoning?

 

[Sand Dancer]

I think you're picking and choosing what is fact based on your own views. The Bible is non-fiction and historical. What sources do you have to back up your reasoning?

We all do that, but since there is no evidence that much of it happened, plus the errors, outdated info, plagiarism and contradiction, I will stick with being skeptical. History trumps mythology every time.

 

[Sand Dancer]

True, but not particularly relevant.
We also know how to prevent pregnancy, if that's going to be such a huge disaster that we'll kill our offspring to avoid the responsibility.
Tom

Yes, but as long as it is not 100% effective, things will happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I saw this the other day and thought it appropriate for this thread:

 

[Father Heathen]

What if I someone would say "you don’t have necessary attributes", would it be then ok, if that person would abort you?

That would be random and arbitrary, so obviously not.

 

[james bond]

You would probably be amazed at how many children who wind up in the care of Children's Aid societies do not get adopted, period. I didn't, and I know many other who likewise didn't.

I have stated before that while I do not like abortion used as after-the-fact birth control, and I don't like abortions that occur very far past the first trimester, my likes and dislikes don't enter into the question. I must, in the end, defer to the woman or girl who does not wish to be forced to have a baby that they do not want.

And need I remind you that while laws may offer some protection, laws are quite frequently broken, too. So, sure, you can punish a rapist, but I would not compel the girl who was raped to carry any resulting pregnancy to term.

Where's your study for the children who do not get adopted?

There is a problem with abortion used as after-the-fact birth control, and that is it is being used as birth control. For whatever reason, having legalized abortion causes people to not use birth control. See my study below on abortion and increased crime rate.

The woman or girl has to have the baby because the baby is a living human. This is the law now. From there she can decide to keep the baby or put it up for adoption. Even the fetus should be given the same right to life. It means young people who practice in unwed sex will have to better protect themselves from an unwanted fetus. With abortion, we see that this doesn't happen.

We still have the following going on from Planned Parenthood. These were former eugenicists who claimed abortions would reduce crime.

These pro-abortionists were wrong and lied about how abortion would reduce crime. To the contrary, it increased crime in poor neighborhoods.

"Throughout the twentieth century, eugenicists promoted abortion and birth control, claiming that if the “lower classes” would only have fewer children, crime would also decline. This was one of the primary themes of Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review, in which Montgomery Mulford wrote, “I am of the belief that the acceptance of birth control by society, and its frank teaching, can help diminish criminal activity!”1

This theme still resonates strongly with many people today. The best-known study of the abortion-crime connection was performed by John J. Donohue III and Steven D. Levitt in 2001. In Harvard University’s Quarterly Journal of Economics, they concluded:"

...

"While Donohue and Levitt were doing their research, however, other scientists were arriving at opposite results, refuting the theory that abortion and crime rate directly affect one another.

Law professors John R. Lott, Jr. of Yale Law School and John E. Whitley of the University of Adelaide found that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by up to 7%. They concluded that legalizing abortion is a contributing factor to the great increase in out‑of‑wedlock births and single parent families, which in turn contribute to increased crime rates. Since 1970, the percentage of single‑parent households in the United States has nearly tripled, from 11% to 32%, and the percentage of out‑of‑wedlock births has nearly quadrupled, from 11% to 43% of all children.7 Children born out-of-wedlock and raised by only one parent have a significantly higher incidence of crime."

Abortion and Crime Rate: What's True and What Isn't

Thus, we've been lied to about how abortion would protect young people who practice unwed sex and get them to use birth control, and the benefits of abortion such as reducing crime rate. Having abortion as a fail safe measure of birth control has made it worse. It seems when the impetus is put upon the young couple and not the state, then it makes them more careful and responsible.