• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sorry, i just don't get it.

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,828
Reaction score
10,833
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What is the point trying to be made in this conversation? By you, @quip, @choiceone, etc?

Any individual woman is at significant risk...it cant always be predicted or prevented. You also arent including the other 86,000 that suffer extreme harm, even permanent disability...Is that considfered "OK since they're alive?" Things like stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, pre-eclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, etc. This impacts the rest of their lives and ability to work, care for a family, everything.

So ALL women are at risk for every pregnancy. The only reason the numbers matter is if someone values the unborn more than the women, believing that they are entitled to demand women take that risk. The federal govt does not take that position...and it doesnt in any other circumstances either, except the draft. (Demand someone risk their life without their consent.)

If it's still about self-defense, it's not "IMO." It's about bodily autonomy and having your body used without your consent, about sacrificing your right to self-determination in order to give it to someone else without your consent. Since there is a safer medical procedure available, the govt nor strangers should have the right to deny a woman that procedure.
100% Correct. And I especially agree with the bolded. The federal government doesn't take the position that the right to life of the unborn supersede the right of the mother to privacy and bodily autonomy. Nor should it. No one should have the right to deny a woman this choice.

But some state governments are starting to take that position. My argument starts from this premise in order to show that you can't believe this and still believe that there should be exceptions for rape victims under the doctrine of self-defense. It doesn't work. If we start from this assumption, (that the right of the unborn to life outweighs the right of the woman to privacy and bodily autonomy, and the only legal justification to take the life of the unborn, like any other human, is in self-defense,) then there should be no exceptions that allow abortion under this doctrine outside of the emergency room scenario.

I don't agree with the above conclusion because I don't agree with the premise. Any rights we apply to the unborn should be subordinate to the rights of the mother, including the right to life. Or we could simply assume that there are no rights that apply to the unborn. But for those that do agree with the above pro-life premise that the unborn have an equal right to life to any other human, I don't see how they can logically allow for exceptions for rape victims, or pregnant children. If your premise is that the unborn have equal right to life as any other human, then abortion can never be allowed outside of the emergency room where it is reasonable to assume that the mother's life is in peril.
 

quip

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
621
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Having an abortion is the homicide of a human with an equal right to life to the mother in the analogy. Killing other drivers is homicide of another human with an equal right to life as well. When you use self-defense to justify one over the other based on "inherent risk of the activity," you are changing your standards between each scenario to suit your argument. This is equivocation.
I'm simply stating that the two situations are not equal (analogous). It's superficially appealing, spurious.

The setting: A worried woman who justifies her action by way of self-defense. Here's the two scenarios:

1. If a woman is worried about the risks of driving she may simply stop (abort driving from her life) driving and nobody dies.

2. If a woman is worried about the risks of pregnancy she may have an abortion and the fetus inevitably dies.

It's a false comparison. You're not giving woman #1 any option for her concern, she's only to drive, while using that situation to condemn the action of woman #2.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,828
Reaction score
10,833
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm simply stating that the two situations are not equal (analogous). It's superficially appealing, spurious.

The setting: A worried woman who justifies her action by way of self-defense. Here's the two scenarios:

1. If a woman is worried about the risks of driving she may simply stop (abort driving from her life) driving and nobody dies.

2. If a woman is worried about the risks of pregnancy she may have an abortion and the fetus inevitably dies.

It's a false comparison. You're not giving woman #1 any option for her concern, she's only to drive, while using that situation to condemn the action of woman #2.
I wasn't comparing options, I was comparing the legality of the outcomes. If the only way for woman #1 to stop driving is to kill an innocent person, then it doesn't mean that she can legally do this just because "driving is technically a risk." That would still be murder.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,828
Reaction score
10,833
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In case you hadn't noticed, this is 2022 and maternal deaths are rising.
So? Are you quibbling that the risk of dying from a pregnancy is now 0.02%?

Again, the risk is irrelevant. A woman should not have to justify to you or me why she wants to have an abortion. It is her body, her choice. I don't need to know if she is in fear for her life because she does not answer to me and I do not justify abortion in the name of self-defense.
 

quip

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
621
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I wasn't comparing options, I was comparing the legality of the outcomes. If the only way for woman #1 to stop driving is to kill an innocent person, then it doesn't mean that she can legally do this just because "driving is technically a risk." That would still be murder.
There's no accusation of murder in a typical automobile fatality. You're presuming too much.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,828
Reaction score
10,833
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There's no accusation of murder in a typical automobile fatality. You're presuming too much.
Ok, if you don't like the analogy, then how about another one.

The flu is a risk. A pregnant woman is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 times more likely to die of the flu than to die in childbirth in a given year.

If you are trapped in an elevator with another person who has the flu, are you justified in killing this person in self-defense? After all, getting the flu is provably a risk. Between 12,000 and 50,000 people die from the flu each year in the US. Are you justified in killing this person for your own protection?
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
9,059
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
There's no accusation of murder in a typical automobile fatality. You're presuming too much.
You are making the assumption that the implanted embryo has its own life apart from the woman's and that abortion means deliberately targeting the embryo to kill it. That is not what happens in an abortion.

When a woman has an early abortion, say, the first 10 weeks.

The placenta is made of the blastocyst's tissue and the woman's tissue, which is used by the blastocyst without her consent if she has not consented specifically to pregnancy. The woman takes mifepristone to soften the connection of the placenta to her endometrial wall. All the tissue at that connection is hers, as the blastocyst has used it for that end of the placenta, so only her own tissue is affected.

Then, the woman takes misoprostol to cause contractions in her uterus to flush out its contents. In that flushing, the placenta and embryo as well as everything surrounding them are ejected. This ends the pregnancy.

The embryo happens to die when this occurs because its apparent life, like that of a bodily limb, depends on the oxygen, antibodies, and nutrients in the woman's blood being transferred to the placenta and thence to the embryo. It does not obtain any of those things from outside the woman's body, but rather takes from the woman the oxygen and nutrients she has put into her own body to sustain her own life. This is why a very pregnant woman may become short of breath - because the embryo/fetus is taking oxygen away from her.

It is in the embryonic state and as a fetus before viability that the embryo/fetus has no chance of surviving outside of the woman's body and/or free of the connection allowing it to use her blood oxygen, etc. After viability, it has a 50/50 chance of survival outside of her body and free of the connection, because at that point it is capable of having a life of its own.

In fact, if the woman dies before fetal viability is attained, the embryo/fetus always dies, too. But this is not a symmetrical relation because, if the embryo or pre-viable fetus dies, the woman doesn't, as her own life does not depend on the embryo/fetus - it is truly her own life.

Your problem is not understanding that the implanted embryo/fetus, before that point of viability, has her life, not its own, and isn't even capable of having its own.

So stop claiming it has a right to her life, because no one has a right to someone else's life.
 
Last edited:

quip

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
621
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You are making the assumption that the implanted embryo has its own life apart from the woman's and that abortion means deliberately targeting the embryo to kill it. That is not what happens in an abortion.

When a woman has an early abortion, say, the first 10 weeks.

The placenta is made of the blastocyst's tissue and the woman's tissue, which is used by the blastocyst without her consent if she has not consented specifically to pregnancy. The woman takes mifepristone to soften the connection of the placenta to her endometrial wall. All the tissue at that connection is hers, as the blastocyst has used it for that end of the placenta, so only her own tissue is affected.

Then, the woman takes misoprostol to cause contractions in her uterus to flush out its contents. In that flushing, the placenta and embryo as well as everything surrounding them are ejected. This ends the pregnancy.

The embryo happens to die when this occurs because its apparent life, like that of a bodily limb, depends on the oxygen, antibodies, and nutrients in the woman's blood being transferred to the placenta and thence to the embryo. It does not obtain any of those things from outside the woman's body, but rather takes from the woman the oxygen and nutrients she has put into her own body to sustain her own life. This is why a very pregnant woman may become short of breath - because the embryo/fetus is taking oxygen away from her.

It is in the embryonic state and as a fetus before viability that the embryo/fetus has no chance of surviving outside of the woman's body and/or free of the connection allowing it to use her blood oxygen, etc. After viability, it has a 50/50 chance of survival outside of her body and free of the connection, because at that point it is capable of having a life of its own.

In fact, if the woman dies before fetal viability is attained, the embryo/fetus always dies, too. But this is not a symmetrical relation because, if the embryo or pre-viable fetus dies, the woman doesn't, as her own life does not depend on the embryo/fetus - it is truly her own life.

Your problem is not understanding that the implanted embryo/fetus, before that point of viability, has her life, not its own, and isn't even capable of having its own.

So stop claiming it has a right to her life, because no one has a right to someone else's life.
Ok.
 

quip

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
621
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ok, if you don't like the analogy, then how about another one.

The flu is a risk. A pregnant woman is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 times more likely to die of the flu than to die in childbirth in a given year.

If you are trapped in an elevator with another person who has the flu, are you justified in killing this person in self-defense? After all, getting the flu is provably a risk. Between 12,000 and 50,000 people die from the flu each year in the US. Are you justified in killing this person for your own protection?
Same problem exists. She may abort entering elevators, risks are therefore resolved.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,828
Reaction score
10,833
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Same problem exists. She may abort entering elevators, risks are therefore resolved.
She cannot abort entering the elevator if she is already in it.
 

quip

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
621
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
She cannot abort entering the elevator if she is already in it.
True. But if she's worried about the risk she shouldn't be there in the first place.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,828
Reaction score
10,833
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
True. But if she's worried about the risk she shouldn't be there in the first place.
Do you feel that a woman worried about the risk of pregnancy shouldn't be having sex in the first place as well?
 

quip

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
621
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Do you feel that a woman worried about the risk of pregnancy shouldn't be having sex in the first place as well?
Sure, ideally. But you know, sh!t happens.
 
Top Bottom