If every state had the same abortion law, it would be..... (1 Viewer)

[Josie]

Let's imagine that every state was under the same umbrella abortion law....a federal law. Let's assume that in the cases of rape, incest and mother's life at risk, abortion is allowed without question and without the fear of prosecution.

This poll is only about the cases where a woman simply doesn't want to be pregnant anymore (not for the above reasons).

At what point in the pregnancy would you ban these kind of abortions? Again, remove rape, incest and mother's life at risk from the equation. This is just about women who don't want to be pregnant.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Let's imagine that every state was under the same umbrella abortion law....a federal law. Let's assume that in the cases of rape, incest and mother's life at risk, abortion is allowed without question and without the fear of prosecution.

This poll is only about the cases where a woman simply doesn't want to be pregnant anymore (not for the above reasons).

At what point in the pregnancy would you ban these kind of abortions? Again, remove rape, incest and mother's life at risk from the equation. This is just about women who don't want to be pregnant.

No abortion period.

 

[Josie]

No abortion period.

The poll is up now.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Let's imagine that every state was under the same umbrella abortion law....a federal law. Let's assume that in the cases of rape, incest and mother's life at risk, abortion is allowed without question and without the fear of prosecution.

This poll is only about the cases where a woman simply doesn't want to be pregnant anymore (not for the above reasons).

At what point in the pregnancy would you ban these kind of abortions? Again, remove rape, incest and mother's life at risk from the equation. This is just about women who don't want to be pregnant.

Scientifically throughout the whole pregnancy the unborn don't have any of the rational attributes associated with personhood (since they lack the mental capabilities to support these traits in the first place) until some time after birth. If one wants to declare them a person at one particular point the entity who made this claim will need to show us what the unborn have at that point and time that warrants them having personhood and not your average ordinary animal.

I am also fully aware of the fact that the unborn have the potential to exceed your average ordinary animal in a wide variety of areas but to me there is no reason for these potentials to be fulfilled unlike your average pro lifer who will claim these potentials must be actualized.

But since our society is still somewhat Anthropocentric (not as much since abortion became legal in most of the developed nations) I wouldn't mind a cut off around the 21 week mark since that is around the time they actually have a mind and I believe sentience as well. And that cut off point should be no problem with most since 99% of abortions happen before the 21 week mark

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

The poll is up now.

Thx for letting us know. I was wondering where it was at

 

[Your Star]

Abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks.

 

[digsbe]

No elective abortion, period. It's barbaric, evil, and shouldn't be allowed in any society that values human rights and human life.

 

[Josie]

Thx for letting us know. I was wondering where it was at

I thought you were for abortion at any moment even after birth?

 

[Josie]

No elective abortion, period. It's barbaric, evil, and shouldn't be allowed in any society that values human rights and human life.

Agreed.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

I thought you were for abortion at any moment even after birth?

I don't mind the 21 week cut off since the vast majority of society engages in Anthropocentrism still (not as much though since abortion became legal) but don't really care if it performed beyond that point.

But yeah personally I don't mind abortion in any stage of the pregnancy.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Scientifically throughout the whole pregnancy the unborn don't have any of the rational attributes associated with personhood (since they lack the mental capabilities to support these traits in the first place) until some time after birth. If one wants to declare them a person at one particular point the entity who made this claim will need to show us what the unborn have at that point and time that warrants them having personhood and not your average ordinary animal.

I am also fully aware of the fact that the unborn have the potential to exceed your average ordinary animal in a wide variety of areas but to me there is no reason for these potentials to be fulfilled unlike your average pro lifer who will claim these potentials must be actualized.

But since our society is still somewhat Anthropocentric (not as much since abortion became legal in most of the developed nations) I wouldn't mind a cut off around the 21 week mark since that is around the time they actually have a mind and I believe sentience as well. And that cut off point should be no problem with most since 99% of abortions happen before the 21 week mark

So are you saying we should even be able to abort the ones already born? Just trying to clarify.

 

[ToastyOats]

I'm going with 21-24 weeks, anytime after (Or maybe during as we know and learn more) that we start to get into the issue of actual sentience and viability, and to me that's where we get into the "Is it murder?" question.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Scientifically throughout the whole pregnancy the unborn don't have any of the rational attributes associated with personhood (since they lack the mental capabilities to support these traits in the first place) until some time after birth. If one wants to declare them a person at one particular point the entity who made this claim will need to show us what the unborn have at that point and time that warrants them having personhood and not your average ordinary animal.

I am also fully aware of the fact that the unborn have the potential to exceed your average ordinary animal in a wide variety of areas but to me there is no reason for these potentials to be fulfilled unlike your average pro lifer who will claim these potentials must be actualized.

But since our society is still somewhat Anthropocentric (not as much since abortion became legal in most of the developed nations) I wouldn't mind a cut off around the 21 week mark since that is around the time they actually have a mind and I believe sentience as well. And that cut off point should be no problem with most since 99% of abortions happen before the 21 week mark

Do you share this same "non-personhood" standard should the unborn life be terminated by negligence or criminal intent by another? If that same 20 week unborn "non-person" life was lost due to say a DUI accident or a street mugging would that not be considered a manslaughter/murder charge?

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

So are you saying we should even be able to abort the ones already born? Just trying to clarify.

Yes for severely disabled babies (like those with anercepholy or Harlequin-type ichthyosis) , is that when a life is so miserable it is not worth living then it is permissible to give it a lethal injection. These are decisions that should be taken by parents never the state in consultation with their doctors.

What do people think amniocentesis and the selective abortion of Down's Syndrome unborn humans are? Why limit the killing to the womb? Nothing magical happens at birth besides the infant having animal level mental capabilities and to some degree sentience. Of course, if infanticide somehow became legal (once when the anthropocentrism claims down) it needs to be strictly legally controlled and rare but it should not be ruled out, any more than abortion.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Yes for severely disabled babies (like those with anercepholy or Harlequin-type ichthyosis) , is that when a life is so miserable it is not worth living then it is permissible to give it a lethal injection. These are decisions that should be taken by parents never the state in consultation with their doctors.

What do people think amniocentesis and the selective abortion of Down's Syndrome unborn humans are? Why limit the killing to the womb? Nothing magical happens at birth besides the infant having animal level mental capabilities and to some degree sentience. Of course, if infanticide somehow became legal (once when the anthropocentrism claims down) it needs to be strictly legally controlled and rare but it should not be ruled out, any more than abortion.

That just seems to me like an utter disrespect for human life. What if they baby doesn't want to die? What if it wants to live?

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

1. That just seems to me like an utter disrespect for human life.

2. What if they baby doesn't want to die? What if it wants to live?

1. Human life only needs to be respected up to a certain extent

2. A entity that has never put any type of value on it's own existence is not a entity that wants to go on living. Once when a entity has data in it's head about what it wants to do in the future with it's life is a entity that wants to go on living to pursue it's goals, desires and interests it has created for itself. None of this is present in a baby since they lack the mental capabilities to comprehend life in this way.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

1. Human life only needs to be respected up to a certain extent

2. A entity that has never put any type of value on it's own existence is not a entity that wants to go on living. Once when a entity has data in it's head about what it wants to do in the future with it's life is a entity that wants to go on living to pursue it's goals, desires and interests it has created for itself. None of this is present in a baby since they lack the mental capabilities to comprehend life in this way.

Except you cannot actually measure that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Scientifically throughout the whole pregnancy the unborn don't have any of the rational attributes associated with personhood (since they lack the mental capabilities to support these traits in the first place) until some time after birth. If one wants to declare them a person at one particular point the entity who made this claim will need to show us what the unborn have at that point and time that warrants them having personhood and not your average ordinary animal.

By this logic, we cannot even consider a newborn infant to be a “person”. Personhood would have to be recognized at some later point, at least a few years past birth, and the same burden that you cite would have to be applied to any claim as to when this person hood is achieved. Perhaps one isn't a “person” until one is capable of fully supporting one's self, without having to depend any any support or protection from one's parents or guardian.

Your position can as rationally be used to invalidate all prohibitions against child abuse or neglect of any kind, as to invalidate any prohibitions against abortion.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No elective abortion, period. It's barbaric, evil, and shouldn't be allowed in any society that values human rights and human life.

It wouldn't be used in any society that values human rights and human life. The fact that it is tolerated at all in our society proves that our society does not properly value human life or human rights.

 

[Bonzai]

By this logic, we cannot even consider a newborn infant to be a “person”. Personhood would have to be recognized at some later point, at least a few years past birth, and the same burden that you cite would have to be applied to any claim as to when this person hood is achieved. Perhaps one isn't a “person” until one is capable of fully supporting one's self, without having to depend any any support or protection from one's parents or guardian.

Your position can as rationally be used to invalidate all prohibitions against child abuse or neglect of any kind, as to invalidate any prohibitions against abortion.

Before Christianity, that is the way the Pagans lived...................

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Before Christianity, that is the way the Pagans lived...................

What was the point of that remark?

Is it your intent to argue that because something is “the way the Pagans lived”, that this in any way indicates that was the right way to live?

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Except you cannot actually measure that.

Actually yes it can be measured.

This isn't the 1700's anymore davidtaylorjr

 

[minnie616]

Let's imagine that every state was under the same umbrella abortion law....a federal law. Let's assume that in the cases of rape, incest and mother's life at risk, abortion is allowed without question and without the fear of prosecution.

This poll is only about the cases where a woman simply doesn't want to be pregnant anymore (not for the above reasons).

At what point in the pregnancy would you ban these kind of abortions? Again, remove rape, incest and mother's life at risk from the equation. This is just about women who don't want to be pregnant.

What about irreparable damage to a major bodily function if the pregnancy continued?
What about severe fetal or gentic abnormalities ?
Would they also be included in the abortions without question?

 

[Josie]

What about irreparable damage to a major bodily function if the pregnancy continued?
What about severe fetal or gentic abnormalities ?
Would they also be included in the abortions without question?

As I said, this is only about women who just don't want to be pregnant anymore --- nothing else.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

1. By this logic, we cannot even consider a newborn infant to be a “person”.

2. Personhood would have to be recognized at some later point, at least a few years past birth.

3. Perhaps one isn't a “person” until one is capable of fully supporting one's self, without having to depend any any support or protection from one's parents or guardian.

1. Yes I don't think a newborn personally actually isn't a person. But the law doesn't have to reflect that. The law can say ''Every human from birth on can count as if they were a person.''

2. Personhood can be recognized at birth but yes in my opinion personhood would start a few years after birth

3. What defines a person should not be on dependency