A civil debate on the abortion issue

[Lursa]

Why is an unborn child's cry only a reaction whereas a newborn's is evidence of intent? You don't think you're employing rather selective interpretations?

I cant believe this needs to be explained. There is nothing for the unborn to demand or manipulate. If you want an education on human development, please go find one elsewhere.

You have lost this argument.

Not so. It's not an exchange of one life for another. No one has to die. Very rarely, pregnancies are lethal, and no one expects women to deliver when their lives are at risk.

Yes it is, since every single pregnancy risks a woman's health and life. It cannot be predicted nor always prevented. Hence strangers morally cannot force a woman to take those risks against her will. The strangers would be taking responsibility for her life (or the govt would be) and they cannot save her. Do you believe the govt or strangers are entitled to demand women take this risk?

The govt already knows it does not...and does not. It does not anywhere else in society except the draft. And that is for the greater good of our society. There are no negative defects of abortion on society, so it is not remotely justified for abortion. If you believe there are, please list some?

That's an inaccurate description of the situation. It's not a case of "choose who dies", as you suggest here. No one has to die. It's not a competition between two people with a right to life. It's party A seeking to kill party B because party B is troublesome and difficult to the well-being of party A.

A woman's life and health are not just 'troubles.' They are dependencies that OTHERs also depend on.Her ability to work and put food on the table, a roof over heads in a secure neighborhood? Most women who have abortions already have at least one other child, plus other dependents too, elderly, disabled. These women have obligations and commitments to employers, church, community, society.

So your dismissal of their lives and their effects on society and their contritibutions to society is inaccurate and disrespectful. If a woman believes she needs an abortion to uphold her responsibilities and obligations in society, no one else knows better than she does and no one else gets to decide for her. Her life and all depending on it are of higher priority than the unborn which as an embryo, only has a 1/3 chance of survival anyway. Why should she sacrifice her health, her life, her future and her responsibilities for those odds?

2/3rds of all embryos don’t survive*
*
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101003205930.htm*
*

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die. The findings are important to the understanding of the fundamentals of human development at the earliest stages, which have largely remained a mystery despite the attention given to human embryonic stem cell research.*

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[southwest88]

Re: A question of definition

It [slavery] was practiced and legally enforced throughout parts of the country until the conclusion of the civil war. During that time, when it was de facto legal, was it morally right?

Looking @ the history of slavery, especially the British history which is usually invoked to justify its use & continued use in the US after independence from England, I don't think slavery in the US was justified.

I'm puzzled that you set such great store by the moral correctness of the question. As if moral correctness were somehow going to carry the day - or perhaps better said, Should have carried the day. Can you explain why you're so interested in the question?

 

[Atreus21]

Until you can give us the link to something you have read all you are doing is just inane questioning about hypothetical situations you have concocted so you can whip out your prepared answers.

I suspect (even more so now that you avoid a straight answer) that the child being aware or sentient or not makes no difference to your support for abortion; that you'd support abortion even if the child were sentient.

If I'm wrong, just tell me so.

 

[Atreus21]

Re: A question of definition

Looking @ the history of slavery, especially the British history which is usually invoked to justify its use & continued use in the US after independence from England, I don't think slavery in the US was justified.

I'm puzzled that you set such great store by the moral correctness of the question. As if moral correctness were somehow going to carry the day - or perhaps better said, Should have carried the day. Can you explain why you're so interested in the question?

Because people are citing the legality of abortion as if it's relevant to the morality of abortion. The legality of slavery wasn't relevant. The legality of the interment of Japanese-Americans wasn't relevant. Those practices were wrong, even though they were legal at one time.

 

[southwest88]

I don't. I make it my business to say that deliberately killing innocent human beings is wrong.

Watch this:

The law says slavery is legal. If you think slavery is wrong don't own any. Make sure you control your family so they don't either. As a church member in good standing take on the responsibility of punishing church-members who own slaves. The Constitution guarantees you all those rights. You are free to keep your slave-owning church members moral. Why do you need to control slave-owners outside your church. What's it to you if they own slaves. They do not think it's wrong. What's your point?

These arguments have long been deployed by the true evil-doers of history.

In the US, after the Civil War - which definitively settled the question of slavery by force of arms; a slaughter of young men, destruction of farms, cities, disease, starvation & suffering - slavery is outlawed. We amended the Constitution to legally put an end to it.

The carveout for religious belief (in the case of abortion) is itself rooted in the US Constitution.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

That is the glib and specious argument of the anti-abortion movement. If you don't understand that an enslaved adult isn't the same as a lima bean sized, non-sentient, non-aware, entity that can only exist in the uterus you are too stupid to comment on either slavery or abortion. It is difficult to believe that the people who choose to use this argument are so childish they don't understand how stupid the argument it. They are possibly thinking that those they use it against are also as childish as they are and will be moved to say, "Oh, yes I never thought about it before a fetus is just like a slave.

Lima bean sized embryos obviously are not the same as their moms, but the first thing he needs to stop doing is compare embryos to slaves.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

The unborn cry in the womb too.

Where did you get this information from?

 

[Atreus21]

I cant believe this needs to be explained. There is nothing for the unborn to demand or manipulate.

...And you're suggesting the child is aware of this? That it switches to crying out of instinct or discomfort to crying out of manipulation, and that this indicates intent, which confers innocence on the child?

This is hard to distinguish from mysticism.

If you want an education on human development, please go find one elsewhere.

You have lost this argument.

Trust me, I'm as aghast as you are.

Yes it is, since every single pregnancy risks a woman's health and life.

Every pregnancy risks a mother's health and life.
Every abortion by definition means the death of the child.

The mother isn't required to die by averting an abortion.
The child is required to die by having an abortion.

See?

It cannot be predicted nor always prevented. Hence strangers morally cannot force a woman to take those risks against her will. The strangers would be taking responsibility for her life (or the govt would be) and they cannot save her. Do you believe the govt or strangers are entitled to demand women take this risk?

The govt already knows it does not...and does not. It does not anywhere else in society except the draft. And that is for the greater good of our society. There are no negative defects of abortion on society, so it is not remotely justified for abortion. If you believe there are, please list some?

A woman's life and health are not just 'troubles.' They are dependencies that OTHERs also depend on.Her ability to work and put food on the table, a roof over heads in a secure neighborhood? Most women who have abortions already have at least one other child, plus other dependents too, elderly, disabled. These women have obligations and commitments to employers, church, community, society.

So your dismissal of their lives and their effects on society and their contritibutions to society is inaccurate and disrespectful. If a woman believes she needs an abortion to uphold her responsibilities and obligations in society, no one else knows better than she does and no one else gets to decide for her. Her life and all depending on it are of higher priority than the unborn which as an embryo, only has a 1/3 chance of survival anyway. Why should she sacrifice her health, her life, her future and her responsibilities for those odds?

2/3rds of all embryos don’t survive*
*
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101003205930.htm*
*

Because the alternative is deliberately killing an innocent human being.

 

[Atreus21]

Where did you get this information from?

Common knowledge. Just google it.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Right. Before it was passed, were blacks in fact lesser human beings?

Would you mind avoiding the slavery topic? None of that has anything to do with abortion.

 

[southwest88]

Re: A question of definition

Because people are citing the legality of abortion as if it's relevant to the morality of abortion. The legality of slavery wasn't relevant. The legality of the interment of Japanese-Americans wasn't relevant. Those practices were wrong, even though they were legal at one time.

the legality of abortion as if it's relevant to the morality of abortion Well, yes, abortion's legality is relevant to how the state responds to each abortion. The US was conceived & designed as a secular state, not as a religious state - which was more the European model @ the time. This is why there's a separation of church & state in the US Constitution. Religious values help form citizens & voters, but the state cannot establish a state religion. To the extent that the state's response to abortion is codified morality - the long-term will of the voters - then the long-term state's response to any given situation is the morality - or @ least, the common morality that the voters are willing to accept.

legality of slavery wasn't relevant I think it was, but the abolitionists apparently never thought to question the legal basis by which slavery was established in the colonies & in the US. If they had pursued it, they might have been able to prevail in court, & the entire Civil War might have been rendered moot & unnecessary. Wouldn't that have been something?

legality of the interment of Japanese-Americans wasn't relevant Certainly it was relevant. The initial decision was not to inter Japanese-Americans. Someone in CA (I believe it was) with considerable political clout wanted the Japanese-Americans interned, & he was able to prevail over FDR's better judgment (as I recall). So the legality was relevant; but it was overridden, under the rubric of national security. (See Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia)

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Where do you guys get this definition of innocence? Certainly not from any dictionary. Innocence means having done nothing wrong, justifying no punishment or consequence. It has nothing whatsoever to do with thought or intent.

The dictionary definition of innocence requires personhood. Only born humans are people.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Just saying if you take an honest look at who is aborting their babies this is what you have. Dismiss me as a bigot if it's more convenient but I speak a truth I was fairly certain most of you don't have an appetite to face in a realistic fashion.

I am sure you know there is no such thing as aborting babies. That is literally impossible. No, you are not speaking the truth. Where is YOUR appetite to face reality?

 

[Free Thinker]

I am sure you know there is no such thing as aborting babies. That is literally impossible. No, you are not speaking the truth. Where is YOUR appetite to face reality?

And that's a wrap folks, can't have a rational discussion with someone who denies life.

Carry on.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Common knowledge. Just Google it.

I clearly stated in the OP you are not allowed to make claims in rebuttals without supporting website links. If your statement was "common knowledge" nobody would need Google to learn that stuff.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

And that's a wrap folks, can't have a rational discussion with someone who denies life.

Carry on.

Where did you get the idea I deny life?

 

[weaver2]

And that's a wrap folks, can't have a rational discussion with someone who denies life.

Carry on.

It was a wrap when you posted

I have recently changed my position. Abort away poor people, minorities etc! Who needs your babies anyway?
Oh I'm sorry does that sound racist? Telling it just exactly like it is about abortion is funny that way.
Sharia would be good too for similar reasons. I can get along just fine with laws based on morality. Can everyone?

 

[Atreus21]

Would you mind avoiding the slavery topic? None of that has anything to do with abortion.

Very much disagree. The arguments marshaled in defense of abortion often have very close corollaries with those that defended slavery.

 

[Atreus21]

Re: A question of definition

the legality of abortion as if it's relevant to the morality of abortion Well, yes, abortion's legality is relevant to how the state responds to each abortion. The US was conceived & designed as a secular state, not as a religious state - which was more the European model @ the time. This is why there's a separation of church & state in the US Constitution. Religious values help form citizens & voters, but the state cannot establish a state religion. To the extent that the state's response to abortion is codified morality - the long-term will of the voters - then the long-term state's response to any given situation is the morality - or @ least, the common morality that the voters are willing to accept.

legality of slavery wasn't relevant I think it was, but the abolitionists apparently never thought to question the legal basis by which slavery was established in the colonies & in the US. If they had pursued it, they might have been able to prevail in court, & the entire Civil War might have been rendered moot & unnecessary. Wouldn't that have been something?

legality of the interment of Japanese-Americans wasn't relevant Certainly it was relevant. The initial decision was not to inter Japanese-Americans. Someone in CA (I believe it was) with considerable political clout wanted the Japanese-Americans interned, & he was able to prevail over FDR's better judgment (as I recall). So the legality was relevant; but it was overridden, under the rubric of national security. (See Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia)

Something can be legal and yet be wrong. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

 

[Atreus21]

The dictionary definition of innocence requires personhood. Only born humans are people.

Personhood is an arbitrary term. Jews aren't killable because I say they lack personhood. Let's stick to scientific definitions of human beings, and the fact that just about everyone believes innocent human beings should never be deliberately killed.

 

[weaver2]

Personhood is an arbitrary term. Jews aren't killable because I say they lack personhood. Let's stick to scientific definitions of human beings, and the fact that just about everyone believes innocent human beings should never be deliberately killed.

You choose to think of a fetus as a person with legal rights. That's fine with me, just as long as you keep it your belief and the belief of your church. You have no quarrel with me other then you incessant posting of the righteousness of your beliefs over anyone else beliefs. It's a little wearing to try dealing with someone so filled with morality.

But the instant you start lobbying the government to make your church's beliefs into laws that I have to follow I will start fighting against your unconstitutional actions. I will contribute more heavily to organizations that take away your church's tax free status, report your illegal lobbying and encourage laws that fine your church and put your leaders in jail.

 

[southwest88]

Personhood is an arbitrary term. Jews aren't killable because I say they lack personhood. Let's stick to scientific definitions of human beings, and the fact that just about everyone believes innocent human beings should never be deliberately killed.

Personhood is an arbitrary term - Not in law. Is the US legal system, person is defined. & in Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court holding on abortion, a fetus is not a person (in the legal sense). & consequently, a fetus has no rights, other than what the pregnant woman bearing the fetus may choose for both of them.

scientific definitions of human beings In theory this may sound good. But ordinary day-to-day life runs more on the legal aspects of life than on the scientific aspects.

innocent human beings should never be deliberately killed A fetus? If everything goes just right (& 2/3 of the time, it doesn't), when the fetus is born is when Roe considers the fetus to become a person (legally), with rights of its own.

 

[Atreus21]

You choose to think of a fetus as a person with legal rights. That's fine with me, just as long as you keep it your belief and the belief of your church. You have no quarrel with me other then you incessant posting of the righteousness of your beliefs over anyone else beliefs. It's a little wearing to try dealing with someone so filled with morality.

I think of the fetus as what science tells me it is: a human being.

But the instant you start lobbying the government to make your church's beliefs into laws that I have to follow I will start fighting against your unconstitutional actions. I will contribute more heavily to organizations that take away your church's tax free status, report your illegal lobbying and encourage laws that fine your church and put your leaders in jail.

Alright. What church is that by the way? You seem to know better than I do.

 

[Atreus21]

Personhood is an arbitrary term - Not in law. Is the US legal system, person is defined. & in Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court holding on abortion, a fetus is not a person (in the legal sense). & consequently, a fetus has no rights, other than what the pregnant woman bearing the fetus may choose for both of them.

If tomorrow the law said Jews weren't legally persons, would it be okay to kill them?

scientific definitions of human beings In theory this may sound good. But ordinary day-to-day life runs more on the legal aspects of life than on the scientific aspects.

Right. That's the problem.

innocent human beings should never be deliberately killed A fetus? If everything goes just right (& 2/3 of the time, it doesn't), when the fetus is born is when Roe considers the fetus to become a person (legally), with rights of its own.

Right. That's the problem. We shouldn't be deliberately killing innocent human beings, whether the law protects them or not.

 

[MarcR]

"Civil debate" means we do not personally attack each other for having opposite opinions; insist opinions are facts without posting links support their claims; use emotional terminology that is not based on facts; or attempt to avoid answering specific questions. I see this crap all the time with anti-choicers, who do an excellent job of letting emotion override facts when they obviously should be doing the opposite.

The central meaning in the word civil is courtesy. IMO insincere remarks are by nature discourteous. You are not obliged to share my opinion.