What is your thoughts on Abortion?

[Valjean]

So you believe that a woman has every right to kill, To take a innocent life.

People have always taken innocent life. Are you a vegetarian?
The question is one of moral claim and personhood. Is a foetus a person? Does a foetus have the qualities that entitle it to moral consideration?

For some Unknown reason people have that a baby's life doesn't mean a thing.
There is no right in killing an innocent life.

You're conflating "baby" and "foetus" again. Not the same.
Killing a chicken is taking an innocent life.

That now in NYC babies can be aborted within hours of being born and even after the baby is born.

Link?

What on Earth am I talking about. What I'm talking about is that, in New York City, the democrats just pass a law recently that a baby's life can be taken within hours before the baby is born or just minutes after its born.

that's what I'm talking about. It's these Democrats who are taking things way out of control.to kill a baby just hours before it's born and after it's born.
Democrats are becoming worse than those of the stone age people

Still waiting for a link.

 

[Valjean]

This seems like a statement that necessitates justification. Certainly the fetus does respond to stimuli while in the womb. No one is going to deliberately torture infants to verify all their reactions, but they do react as we would expect babies to react. Considering that this is the case, you need to justify your statement so that we don't immediately throw it out as invented nonsense.

Not following. Response to stimuli = personhood? An amoeba responds to stimuli.

I see. So when exactly does a person acquire person-hood? Are you saying it's fine to do the Sparta method of killing babies that exhibit 'defects' (or indeed any unwanted characteristic)? After all, babies aren't people?

What does Spartan infanticide have to do with anything?
When did I say babies weren't people?

[Valjean said: ↑
A larger consideration would be whether there is divine law to begin with, or even a divinity. Cultural thoughts on these questions are all over the board.]

Sure, that's a consideration. Do you think it is a necessary one?

Inasmuch as it's the usual justification used by right-to-lifers, yes.

You mean 'life, liberty, and property'? Locke believed that most basic human law of nature was the preservation of mankind. How do reconcile your position on natural rights with abortion?

I was thinking more of Rousseau than Locke.
Reconciliation: People have a right to life. Foetuses aren't people.

Does it? If so, what rights are being considered? Life? As in human life? As in what Locke said?

Not following. Clarify, please.

 

[dfnj]

Explain your reasoning

I think mid-term and late-term abortions should be illegal unless the mother's life is in danger. And for any mid-term and late term abortions every attempt must be made to try to save the fetus from dying so it can become a baby. I think there is a good argument with regards to late-term abortions being murder if the fetus is really a baby capable of surviving just fine without the umbilical cord attached.

In terms of abortion rights, the law should be the earlier the better. So I'm not sure what is the exact week to make the cutoff. I'm thinking 8 weeks but I am not an expert. After 8 weeks maybe a person needs to get a judges approval or something.

I think our goal should be to reduce the number of abortions being done by every means possible without taking away a woman's right to choose (within x weeks to be determined). I think we should hand out free condoms to High School. Condoms are so cheap. Make them free. And emergency contraception vending machines should be made available also. I thought this article was very positive:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/11/...campus-vending-machines-day-after-pill-plan-b

I also think nothing meaningful will ever be done with this issue. This issue is too important to Republican politicians. This issue gets out the vote more than any other issue. Republicans had plenty of opportunity to pass a law banning abortion. The idea they do not have the votes is ridiculous. The Senate majority can change the rules in the Senate at the beginning of the session so only 1 simply majority vote is needed. I think having 2 votes to pass any law in the Senate is unconstitutional. Clearly the Constitution says each Senator gets one vote not two. And there's nothing in the Constitution saying the second vote requires 60 votes to pass. The Constitution is very clear. One Senator, one vote.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People have always taken innocent life. Are you a vegetarian?
The question is one of moral claim and personhood. Is a foetus a person? Does a foetus have the qualities that entitle it to moral consideration?

That's not even the question.

Hopefully everyone agrees that I'm a person, a human, and an intelligent (sorta) and self-aware being who has a desire to live. This fact doesn't oblige anybody - including my mother - to provide their bodies against their will to sustain my life.

 

[McBell]

The law of which the Governor of the State of New York state sign into law.
Was the law which abortions can be done within hours before the baby is born or even within minutes after the babies are born.

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo of the State of New York, today fulfilled his promise to sign into law the Reproductive Health Act, a key component of the 2019 Justice Agenda, within the first 30 days of the new legislative session. The Reproductive Health Act protects women's reproductive rights by ensuring New Yorkers can make personal healthcare decisions and medical professionals can provide crucial services without fear of criminal penalty.

Now the question is,

Who',s to say the woman's health is in Jeopardy.

Who besides professionals makes those determination?

You see there lays the loop hole,

All a women has to say is the baby is jeopardizing her health and the professionals conspire with her. That the baby is jeopardizing her health.

Just to get money off the abortion of the baby.

You really believe that a doctor will pass up the chance to make thousand of dollars off abortions of babies.

If not, then why else are doctor's performing abortions. When doctor's are to preserve life and not take life?

Let's alone for the sake of money

Wow.
You are at best seriously mistaken or at worst a bold faced liar.
Which is it?

 

[Ponder This]

Not following. Response to stimuli = personhood? An amoeba responds to stimuli.
What does Spartan infanticide have to do with anything?
When did I say babies weren't people?

[Valjean said: ↑
A larger consideration would be whether there is divine law to begin with, or even a divinity. Cultural thoughts on these questions are all over the board.]

Inasmuch as it's the usual justification used by right-to-lifers, yes.
I was thinking more of Rousseau than Locke.
Reconciliation: People have a right to life. Foetuses aren't people.
Not following. Clarify, please.

It seems that you regard the same organism as being either a person or not a person based on whether or not it is within or outside of a womb. Which is to say that the act of being removed from the womb and being alive is sufficient to qualify it's personhood and 'right to life'. Is that correct? It doesn't seem like this requires any consideration of sentience as a qualification for personhood. I don't agree that placement inside or outside of a womb is sufficient to disqualify or qualify personhood, but I can certainly see the simplicity of drawing the line between being and not being a person based on this simple, observable state.

In regards to Rousseau... there are natural rights and there are civil rights. Abortion would be a violation of natural rights, but it would not be against civil rights. So to be perfectly clear here: the personhood of the fetus is not relevant because even if the fetus is a person, the state may decide to kill it for the good of the state.

"If the prince says it is expedient for the state that you should die, then you should die."
-Social Contract, Rousseau​

Moreover, it is sufficient reason to kill the fetus simply so that the woman may be considered equal to the man by virtue of not having to bear the burden of pregnancy. She has the (civil) right to kill the fetus because men don't get pregnant. Rousseau said that natural rights are usurped by the civil rights of the Social Contract. I don't see this equality as a sufficient reason to justify abortion. And if the state has not called for the death of the fetus, then it remains to be seen how the death of the fetus shall be justified. What is your read of the matter? Does the woman have a civil right to abortion? How so?

 

[Valjean]

It seems that you regard the same organism as being either a person or not a person based on whether or not it is within or outside of a womb. Which is to say that the act of being removed from the womb and being alive is sufficient to qualify it's personhood and 'right to life'. Is that correct? It doesn't seem like this requires any consideration of sentience as a qualification for personhood. I don't agree that placement inside or outside of a womb is sufficient to disqualify or qualify personhood, but I can certainly see the simplicity of drawing the line between being and not being a person based on this simple, observable state.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that venue is a factor. Qualities like self awareness, self interest, and anticipation of futurity are personhood factors.
Moral consideration is also impacted by factors like capacity for pain, suffering and joy.
Is a foetus self aware? Is it interested in contining to live? Does it even have a concept of futurity?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems that you regard the same organism as being either a person or not a person based on whether or not it is within or outside of a womb. Which is to say that the act of being removed from the womb and being alive is sufficient to qualify it's personhood and 'right to life'. Is that correct? It doesn't seem like this requires any consideration of sentience as a qualification for personhood. I don't agree that placement inside or outside of a womb is sufficient to disqualify or qualify personhood, but I can certainly see the simplicity of drawing the line between being and not being a person based on this simple, observable state.

"Being removed from the womb" is all that's needed for the pregnant person's right to bodily security to no longer be at issue.

Until that happens, the question of whether the fetus is a person with rights is moot, since one person's right to live doesn't trump another person's right to bodily security.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The population of the world has reached the point where the question should be the other way round.
Should people be allowed to procreate freely.
Much like queuing for a buss, only allow as many on as get off.

World Population control has become a real and pressing issue,
one that is made worse by global warming.
Most habitable parts of the world already support a mature population.
The balance of green Oxygenators to Co2 production is in decline.

the pressure of the movement of people from poor unsustainable regions to richer regions is already apparent.
Walls will never be a sufficient answer, and could never apply globally.
We need to start thinking the unthinkable and facilitate people in their choice to terminate their lives as they wish.
So as to correct the age balance in the population.

A word population at around what it was in 1945, was still in balance with nature and fully sustainable.
Over time it would be possible to return to those numbers in a voluntary and orderly manner.

If we do not do so, it will happen through war over diminishing resources and starvation, until the world reaches a balance of extreme poverty and deprivation, living at subsistence level.

Human life is not sacred, nature is.
Nature will survive as long as the world remains viable, with or with out people.

 

[Valjean]

"Being removed from the womb" is all that's needed for the pregnant person's right to bodily security to no longer be at issue.

Until that happens, the question of whether the fetus is a person with rights is moot, since one person's right to live doesn't trump another person's right to bodily security.

Sorry, not following. Could you clarify?

 

[Ponder This]

I'm not sure where you got the impression that venue is a factor.

Is a foetus self aware? Is it interested in contining to live? Does it even have a concept of futurity?

Is a baby self-aware? Is it interested in continuing to live? Does it even have a concept of futurity?

 

[Ponder This]

"Being removed from the womb" is all that's needed for the pregnant person's right to bodily security to no longer be at issue.

Until that happens, the question of whether the fetus is a person with rights is moot, since one person's right to live doesn't trump another person's right to bodily security.

Can you please explain what you mean by the phrases right to 'live' and right to 'bodily security'? What exactly are these? How do these apply to the abortion question? And why do you consider these to be 'rights'?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you please explain what you mean by the phrases right to 'live' and right to 'bodily security'? What exactly are these? How do these apply to the abortion question? And why do you consider these to be 'rights'?

Bodily security is widely upheld as a right, though it's often referred to in different terms:

Bodily integrity - Wikipedia

Security of person - Wikipedia

Even in jurisdictions that don't explicitly mention bodily security in its laws (e.g. the US), the principle still usually is reflected in the laws: even in the US, nobody's compelled to donate their organs, tissue, or bodily fluids, and it's illegal to subject someone to surgery or medical testing without their consent.

 

[Loosestrife]

IM against. I'm also 8 weeks pregnant.
At 8 weeks my Dr detected cardiac activity..my baby's heart is beating at 157 beats per minute. People find killing animals inhumane but it's okay to kill a fetus, which is just Latin for baby, it's still a baby ....ok.

It has a heart beat, my child can open and close it's hands...

They're alive.. and to murder it is wrong imo.

So I'm prolife.

Only under pressing situations would I consider abortion neccessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IM against. I'm also 8 weeks pregnant.
At 8 weeks my Dr detected cardiac activity..my baby's heart is beating at 157 beats per minute. People find killing animals inhumane but it's okay to kill a fetus, which is just Latin for baby, it's still a baby ....ok.

It has a heart beat, my child can open and close it's hands...

They're alive.. and to murder it is wrong imo.

So I'm prolife.

Only under pressing situations would I consider abortion neccessary.

Do you have the same feeling about bone marrow donation? Kidney donation?

Any person who needs bone marrow or a kidney has just as much of a heartbeat as your fetus, and is probably even more capable of opening and closing their hands. Do you also insist that people provide their bodies - or parts thereof - against their will to sustain those lives?

 

[Loosestrife]

It depends how old is the embryo.Would you call this a child?

View attachment 26937
Ciao

- viole

Animals don't look nothing like humans but we still see enough value in them to allow them to not be harmed or mistreated.

 

[Loosestrife]

Do you have the same feeling about bone marrow donation? Kidney donation?

Any person who needs bone marrow or a kidney has just as much of a heartbeat as your fetus, and is probably even more capable of opening and closing their hands. Do you also insist that people provide their bodies - or parts thereof - against their will to sustain those lives?

Well A lot of people dont mind being donors so I don't know what you're getting at

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well A lot of people dont mind being donors so I don't know what you're getting at

And in a pro-choice society, a lot of people don't mind carrying a fetus to term.

People give their organs, tissue, etc., by choice. The pro-choice/anti-choice debate isn't about the people who provide the use of their bodies willingly; it's about what we do with people who don't consent to this use.

So... if you're willing to throw away the rights of a pregnant person on the grounds of the fact that its fetus has a heartbeat and can move its hands, are you also willing to throw away the rights of the matching parent of that fetus in need of organs or tissue once they're an actual child, still with a heartbeat and still able to move their hands?

 

[Loosestrife]

And in a pro-choice society, a lot of people don't mind carrying a fetus to term.

People give their organs, tissue, etc., by choice. The pro-choice/anti-choice debate isn't about the people who provide the use of their bodies willingly; it's about what we do with people who don't consent to this use.

So... if you're willing to throw away the rights of a pregnant person on the grounds of the fact that its fetus has a heartbeat and can move its hands, are you also willing to throw away the rights of the matching parent of that fetus in need of organs or tissue once they're an actual child, still with a heartbeat and still able to move their hands?

Im not throwing away anyone's choice. Everyone has free will. I can't make anyone do anything but I do believe in God and I believe terminating life in the womb is playing God in a way. No one has the right to take life except him and every action has a consequence.

I only sympathize with those that were abused ( raped or were molested at a young age) who see abortion as an out...but a party girl who had a little too much fun and uses abortion as a form of birth control.. I can't muster empathy for.
I feel they should take responsibility for their actions, being loose and not using protection. At the very least consider adoption I think.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Im not throwing away anyone's choice.

So you support access to abortion services, even though you wouldn't choose them for yourself?

Everyone has free will. I can't make anyone do anything but I do believe in God and I believe terminating life in the womb is playing God in a way. No one has the right to take life except him and every action has a consequence.

But this stops after the child is born?

I only sympathize with those that were abused ( raped or were molested at a young age) who see abortion as an out...but a party girl who had a little too much fun and uses abortion as a form of birth control.. I can't muster empathy for.
I feel they should take responsibility for their actions, being loose and not using protection. At the very least consider adoption I think.

Ah - there it is.

I've maintained for a while that the anti-choice movement's positions would make no sense if they were based on "sanctity of life," but all of them are consistent with the assumption that the anti-choice movement is about punishing women for having sex they don't approve of.