Federal abortion rights are probably reduced if not gone in months

[Ren]

OK, you said that already. We saw that you believe that living up to your other responsibilities in life and caring for your current family are selfishness. No problem.

Or also, not bringing one into the world that you cannot do so for.

Seems reasonable to me, the unborn knows no differently. That's why women have a choice, to balance the needs of themselves and others with that of a new life.


Look at you, relying on the emotionally-manipulative words like 'slaughter.' The unborn feels and suffers nothing, so that doesnt really work on the informed, only the ignorant. Why do you bother, why not use valid arguments instead?


There are over 100,000 kids up for adoption in the US now. For every newborn you dump into that huge pool of kids waiting and hoping, one of them goes without a home. Those kids ARE aware.

It me, it's immoral to encourage women to give birth unnecessarily just to dump the baby into that giant pool of kids, adding more. Why would you want anyone to do that? It can directly harm those kids waiting.

I believe in quality of life, not quantity.

Leftist spin. What I'm actually saying, is women who get abortions don't give a shit about life. It's why they don't take any precautions before getting pregnant -- they know they can shit can the little one, guilt free.

The unborn never gets input. Now, I get that someone like you would've been perfectly fine with your mother scooping you out of her womb, because you're enlightened; you understand what a pain in the ass you would have been to your mother, and it would've been better for you to never be born. That's how you think, and it's a free country; you're allowed to think that way. But that's not how everyone else would see it.

I'm not the one who thinks the fetus is nothing more than a blob of chewed bubble gum. That's a developing human being in there, and terminating him or her is equivalent to slaughter.

Yes, those kids are AWARE. Now, do we try to improve how things are, or do we take your route? You know, take each kid aside and ask them if they had the choice between their lives and abortion, which would they have chosen? Any kid that chose the latter or was unsure, you could offer them a way out by delivering a bullet into their heads.

It's immoral to have sex out of wedlock. It's immoral to terminate just because Mom's exercising her right to put her wants ahead of preserving a life.

You believe in maximizing your pleasure at the expense of another life.

 

[Ren]

I'm sure that made sense in your head when you wrote it...unfortunately it's just gibberish to the rest of us

Rights before life, Hampton86; doesn't get any simpler than that.

 

[Hampton86]

Rights before life, Hampton86; doesn't get any simpler than that.

How can you earn rights before you're even born??

Do ova and sperm also have rights?

How far back do you take your silly argument?

 

[Ren]

How can you earn rights before you're even born??

Do ova and sperm also have rights?

How far back do you take your silly argument?

Great question for your side, actually.

Barack Hussein Obama took a swing and a miss.

So how about you? At what point does a baby get human rights?

 

[ashurbanipal]

There sure seems to be a lot of “it can’t happen here” in this thread-in this case manifest as skepticism that RvW won’t be overturned. Think about this: not too long ago, we’d see other countries’ Presidents saying something to encourage racism on TV and think it wouldn’t happen here. Not too long ago we’d have thought that what happened on 1/6 couldn’t happen here. But it is happening here. Folks need to shed that “can’t happen here” attitude. Anything can happen here, and so much more will if we don’t start recognizing what is going on.

 

[Buckeyes85]

What is that interest? Can you be specific? You might not be able to...I posted this question in our Constitution forum and no one had an answer. What do you think?

And the religous argument shouldnt be worth a damn (but of course that doesnt mean it wont be).

What is that interest?


I cant answer that without knowing what the state's interest is, and how they would judge that it supersedes women's rights, including those of due process, privacy, and bodily autonomy. And the fact that women are already contributing members of society, as I mentioned.

Have you ever examined the principle of 'balancing rights?' It's something the courts use and generally reflects the best interests of society. It's google-able.

There are no negative effects of abortion on society. If there are, can you list some?


Maybe you need to be more familiar with RvW then? They specify those rights and the precedents that support them. I mentioned them above.


Again, perhaps some familiarity with the actual decision and the precedents it rests on would help you.


Fine...what are those state's interests and how/why do they supersede those of women and our Const rights? What specifically would the justices be considering?

Um, the interest in protecting human life? I didn't think that was really a mystery.

And spare me your condescending tone and comments. If you have in fact Roe v. Wade- which I have- you would know exactly what state interest was being asserted and you wouldn't need to keep asking for it to be articulated. And as I already clarified, it is almost certainly going to be the same interest the state will assert in the new case.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Leftist spin. What I'm actually saying, is women who get abortions don't give a shit about life. It's why they don't take any precautions before getting pregnant -- they know they can shit can the little one, guilt free.

The unborn never gets input. Now, I get that someone like you would've been perfectly fine with your mother scooping you out of her womb, because you're enlightened; you understand what a pain in the ass you would have been to your mother, and it would've been better for you to never be born. That's how you think, and it's a free country; you're allowed to think that way. But that's not how everyone else would see it.

I'm not the one who thinks the fetus is nothing more than a blob of chewed bubble gum. That's a developing human being in there, and terminating him or her is equivalent to slaughter.

Yes, those kids are AWARE. Now, do we try to improve how things are, or do we take your route? You know, take each kid aside and ask them if they had the choice between their lives and abortion, which would they have chosen? Any kid that chose the latter or was unsure, you could offer them a way out by delivering a bullet into their heads.

It's immoral to have sex out of wedlock. It's immoral to terminate just because Mom's exercising her right to put her wants ahead of preserving a life.

You believe in maximizing your pleasure at the expense of another life.

Religious spin.
Brainwashed catholic, Baptist or evangelical christian?

 

[Hampton86]

Great question for your side, actually.

Barack Hussein Obama took a swing and a miss.

So how about you? At what point does a baby get human rights?

When it's an actual baby

You needed help with that??

 

[ashurbanipal]

Yes, those kids are AWARE.

Well, I'll give you this: you actually named the critical issue where so many abortion opponents do not (for many, they keep talking about "life" and "living" in the same sense that amoebas or algae are alive). But here's my question: our best science tells us that the most basic level of conscious awareness in a fetus starts to develop sometime in the 6-7 month range. Before that, while the fetus is indeed alive, there is no person in there in the sense important to discussion of the morality of abortion. That is, before 6-7 months, the developing fetus is a complete experiential blank, with no interior point of view, no conscious experience whatsoever--as far as we can tell.

I assume you mean that the fetus is aware from the moment of fertilization (or at any rate, at some point before the interval at which abortions tend to be common--around 2-3 months into the pregnancy). How do you know?

 

[Lursa]

Leftist spin. What I'm actually saying, is women who get abortions don't give a shit about life. It's why they don't take any precautions before getting pregnant -- they know they can shit can the little one, guilt free.

LMAO you could not be more wrong. 3/4 of the women that get abortions already have at least one kid and many are married.

They care about life...all the lives they are responsible for and those they have other commitments and obligations to in life.

The unborn never gets input.

What kind of disturbing fantasy has you imagining the unborn can even think? Dont invent silly crap.

Now, I get that someone like you would've been perfectly fine with your mother scooping you out of her womb, because you're enlightened; you understand what a pain in the ass you would have been to your mother, and it would've been better for you to never be born. That's how you think, and it's a free country; you're allowed to think that way. But that's not how everyone else would see it.

Whew! Look at all the triggered terms! Somebody has been caught off guard seeing their knee-jerk beliefs refuted, eh?

Your disturbing, self-indulgent fantasies arent applicable to me in the least...dont make more crap up.

I'm not the one who thinks the fetus is nothing more than a blob of chewed bubble gum. That's a developing human being in there, and terminating him or her is equivalent to slaughter.

More hysteria. Please post quotes where I even imply such things.

Yes, those kids are AWARE. Now, do we try to improve how things are, or do we take your route?

Both. You certainly dont help them by adding more unwanted kids into that huge pool.

You know, take each kid aside and ask them if they had the choice between their lives and abortion, which would they have chosen? Any kid that chose the latter or was unsure, you could offer them a way out by delivering a bullet into their heads.

We've had 4-5 people just on this forum alone say they wish they'd been aborted. One posts here regularly. The forum is a pretty small sampling of America...and so just to have that many people speak up? It easily (and sadly) proves you wrong there too.

It's immoral to have sex out of wedlock. It's immoral to terminate just because Mom's exercising her right to put her wants ahead of preserving a life.

Blah blah blah...you are welcome to you 'morality.' You hold no moral High Ground here.

You'd encourage women to have kids unnecessarily just to add them to a huge adoptive pool of kids already waiting for homes. You'd support the govt using force of law to demand women remain pregnant against our will. Those things are immoral.

You believe in maximizing your pleasure at the expense of another life.

Yeah, you should ask all those women how much pleasure they got out of having abortions Or how fun it was making that difficult decision. Good lord, you're drowning here and your struggles lead you further and further into denigrating women.

I value the unborn but I value all born people more. Obviously you cannot say the same.

 

[Lursa]

Great question for your side, actually.

Barack Hussein Obama took a swing and a miss.

So how about you? At what point does a baby get human rights?

At birth. See: the 14th Amendment.

And rights arent given, they're recognized.

Only persons have rights. Here's how the Const is interpreted into law:

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

​

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

 

[Lursa]

Um, the interest in protecting human life? I didn't think that was really a mystery.

I was very clear about this in the post you quoted. I dont know that it is and your answer is not really founded in anything legal or specific. The woman's life is involved too. Death and severe health damage are not always predictable.

I wrote this to try and clarify: I cant answer that without knowing what the state's interest is, and how they would judge that it supersedes women's rights, including those of due process, privacy, and bodily autonomy. And the fact that women are already contributing members of society, as I mentioned.

And spare me your condescending tone and comments. If you have in fact Roe v. Wade- which I have- you would know exactly what state interest was being asserted and you wouldn't need to keep asking for it to be articulated. And as I already clarified, it is almost certainly going to be the same interest the state will assert in the new case.

I dont know. And you have not proven you have the answer either. I wasnt being condescending...believe me I excel at that and I havent even attempted it here.

My questions were asked in good faith. I accept you answered it in good faith, yet it does not stand on it's own merits. The obvious isnt necessarily true or that simple.

Here's another question from that post that you didnt address, would you care to? "There are no negative effects of abortion on society. If there are, can you list some?"

 

[Ren]

Religious spin.
Brainwashed catholic, Baptist or evangelical christian?

Abortion Warriors ASSEMBLE!!!

-- The Left

 

[Ren]

When it's an actual baby

You needed help with that??

Obama sure did. Where were you???

 

[Unitedwestand13]

There is no enumerated Constitutional right to privacy, bodily autonomy, or abortion. So again, see the 10th.

What about the precedent of griswold v Connecticut?

 

[Ren]

Well, I'll give you this: you actually named the critical issue where so many abortion opponents do not (for many, they keep talking about "life" and "living" in the same sense that amoebas or algae are alive). But here's my question: our best science tells us that the most basic level of conscious awareness in a fetus starts to develop sometime in the 6-7 month range. Before that, while the fetus is indeed alive, there is no person in there in the sense important to discussion of the morality of abortion. That is, before 6-7 months, the developing fetus is a complete experiential blank, with no interior point of view, no conscious experience whatsoever--as far as we can tell.

I assume you mean that the fetus is aware from the moment of fertilization (or at any rate, at some point before the interval at which abortions tend to be common--around 2-3 months into the pregnancy). How do you know?

I'm not talking about awareness or viability. You try to use that argument then there should be ZERO hesitation to pull the plug on life support or coma victims.

We're talking about a human being in development, not some parasite from the insect world. The unborn need to have the same right to live as anyone else.

 

[Ren]

At birth. See: the 14th Amendment.

And rights arent given, they're recognized.

Only persons have rights. Here's how the Const is interpreted into law:

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

​

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

No good.

The 14th Amendment wasn't written with abortion rights in mind. That's way too corrupt and late 20th Century/early 21st Century thinking for that time.

 

[Craig234]

Well, I'll give you this: you actually named the critical issue where so many abortion opponents do not (for many, they keep talking about "life" and "living" in the same sense that amoebas or algae are alive). But here's my question: our best science tells us that the most basic level of conscious awareness in a fetus starts to develop sometime in the 6-7 month range. Before that, while the fetus is indeed alive, there is no person in there in the sense important to discussion of the morality of abortion. That is, before 6-7 months, the developing fetus is a complete experiential blank, with no interior point of view, no conscious experience whatsoever--as far as we can tell.

I assume you mean that the fetus is aware from the moment of fertilization (or at any rate, at some point before the interval at which abortions tend to be common--around 2-3 months into the pregnancy). How do you know?

Oh, boy, this is getting closer to discussing the issue but just to discuss the logic in your argument - wouldn't killing someone in their sleep be ok then, as they are not 'consciously aware'? That's not really the issue, is it.

 

[Hampton86]

Obama sure did. Where were you???

Obama isn't here, chief

Try and focus. Don't let senility win

 

[ashurbanipal]

I'm not talking about awareness or viability. You try to use that argument then there should be ZERO hesitation to pull the plug on life support or coma victims.

We're talking about a human being in development, not some parasite from the insect world. The unborn need to have the same right to live as anyone else.

 

[Hampton86]

I'm not talking about awareness or viability. You try to use that argument then there should be ZERO hesitation to pull the plug on life support or coma victims.

We're talking about a human being in development, not some parasite from the insect world. The unborn need to have the same right to live as anyone else.

Nope

Keep your sharia law to yourself

Your mom seriously never taught you to mind your own business?

Derelict

 

[Hampton86]

Oh, boy, this is getting closer to discussing the issue but just to discuss the logic in your argument - wouldn't killing someone in their sleep be ok then, as they are not 'consciously aware'? That's not really the issue, is it.

Silly argument since sleep is temporary and occurring after becoming aware

 

[Lursa]

No good.

The 14th Amendment wasn't written with abortion rights in mind. That's way too corrupt and late 20th Century/early 21st Century thinking for that time.

LMAO, you really dont understand how our justice system works.

It wasnt written with most, if any, specific rights in mind, except due process which it protects for all of us...for ALL our rights. Wow.

And btw, due process is a hurdle that any attempts to ban having an abortion will need to overcome.

 

[ashurbanipal]

L

Oh, boy, this is getting closer to discussing the issue but just to discuss the logic in your argument - wouldn't killing someone in their sleep be ok then, as they are not 'consciously aware'? That's not really the issue, is it.

No. I agree that's too simplistic--but I didn't say in what way I think awareness is involved, only that it's the central issue. It seems to me that something which has developed consciousness sufficiently well so as to be a person is a morally weighty being. That is, such a being has a right to life, and that right must be considered in our dealings with such a being. This is because, when that being dies, the thing of consequence that dies is the conscious person (see thought experiment below). Contrariwise, something that has never developed consciousness (even if it has the potential to do so) cannot have (yet) become a person, and hence destroying that thing is not nearly as morally weighty an act as destroying a conscious person.

Thus, someone who is asleep has (presumably) previously developed consciousness to the point of being a conscious person--killing them, even in the nadir of sleep, would be destroying a conscious person. Someone who is in a coma presents a border case that shows our intuitions line up with the analysis I've sketched, above. Someone who is in a coma but is minimally aware, or who might yet regain consciousness, is clearly still a living conscious person, and it seems like a morally weighty act to kill that person. However, if there were a case such that we knew the body before us had no awareness whatsoever attached--if it had no mental interiority, no emotions, percepts, memories, judgments, dreams, intentions, etc. and could never have again, it is much less morally weighty to let that body die. The thing of consequence that dies when a person dies has really already died in that case.

Thought experiment: suppose someone came to you and presented a console with two buttons. Perforce you must press one or be killed. If you press the green button, your body will instantly die, but your consciousness will remain as close as possible to how it is now. You won't have a body, but you will still have memories, intentions, experiences, dreams, an internal monologue, could talk to other beings in the same state, etc. If you press the orange button, your consciousness will be instantly extinguished, but your body will go on living forever. It will go around and be, to all external appearance, how you are now. It will go around and laugh, buy things at the store, go to work and do your job, say things to people as you do now, and so on--but there will be no lights on inside. You will be a complete experiential blank; your body will be essentially a machine cleverly contrived to convince everyone else there's a person in there, but there isn't.

Which button do you press? I will bet that anyone who understands the example will choose to press the green button, the one that preserves consciousness. What this tells us is that, while we may fear the destruction of our body, we find our own conscious person much more valuable. This explains why we don't have any qualms at committing wholesale genocide of species of virus, but are disturbed by killing a dog or a cat or a bird or some such unnecessarily or in a way designed to inflict a lot of pain.

So, I think that summarizes (though far from fully explains) the central issue in discussions of abortion. If the fetus has consciousness such that it's become a conscious person, abortion is morally problematic. If it does not, abortion is no more morally problematic than shaving off some skin cells.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I'm not talking about awareness or viability. You try to use that argument then there should be ZERO hesitation to pull the plug on life support or coma victims.

See my post to Craig, just above. I said that awareness is the central issue--not how it applies. It's not as simple as saying it's OK to kill something that is not currently conscious. There needs to be a certain kind of history of conscious awareness in the being which is under consideration. Something that has developed such consciousness in the past such that it's a conscious person (i.e. has an experiential point of view that is temporally consistent) is a morally weighty being and cannot be killed without a great deal of consideration. Something that has never developed such consciousness is not a conscious person, and hence is no more morally weighty than any other non-aware collection of cells.

We're talking about a human being in development, not some parasite from the insect world. The unborn need to have the same right to live as anyone else.

Why do you think so?