Why Do You Post In The Abortion Threads?

[choiceone]

There is no previous legal precedent to cite in reference to a person living inside of another person a la mother and offspring.

Thus, if an F or an E too were recognized as a person in law, it's a whole new legal ballgame.

If an F or an E too were indeed recognized as a person, then, America being America, it would not be as a second class person, I assure you.

Thus with two essentially "all created equal" first class persons to now deal with in this manner, each person's right to life would be paramount, clearly overriding both the right to security and the right to freedom of the other, not to mention rendering arguments of contrived sophistric constructs even more laughable than they already are.

I don't think "a can of worms" even begins to describe it, let alone the nightmare that will be for women and childsupport-fearing men in real-world practicial application.

No, I would think at this time that without a truly middleground solution long-resolved and championed by both sides in the true spirit of poll-response option #1, any such nutty premature SCOTUS decision would be an absolute disaster for many.

Now clearly our evolutions in intellectual awareness, emotional maturity, and medical technology are moving in the direction of indeed one day pushing the legal definition of person back to before birth.

But that's still a little ways off, I would argue.

Nevertheless, it would behoove us all to begin making the necessary preparations now -- to make abortion safe, legal and rare -- long before that prenatal personhood day arrives.

I really don't think we want to wait until the last minute to get prepared for this one -- no, not at all.

The legal precedents saying that no person has a right to the use of another's body for life-support are easier to find, I admit, because there the parallel is clear - and probably enough to keep abortion legal. However, there are legal precedents that say that no person has a right to put one of their body parts inside one of the body cavities of another without that other's consent - forced vaginal and anal penetration are considered rape, and the body part does not have to be a sex organ, and forced oral penetration or ear penetration would be considered legally a form of physical assault. The only exceptions I know of, and they are highly unpopular, have to do with medical cases where the person whose body cavities are penetrated is unconscious or is considered medically to be legally incompetent temporarily or permanently because of some injury or disease - or in cases in pregnancy where a woman does not want a caesarian and the doctor insists to save the life of the woman and/or fetus at the time of childbirth labor. While a person is conscious and one has no sound basis to claim his or her legal incompetence, nobody gets to have one of their body parts or even put an instrument inside of one's body. It's the basis for which one can refuse medical treatment, among other things.

The slippery slope here is that, if you override this, any would-be rapist could decide to rectally penetrate any man against his conscious will, any physical assaulter could forcibly hold your mouth open and punch you in the mouth and to h--- with your teeth because, after all, it won't kill you. Anyone could forcibly punch a finger in your ear and break your eardrum and so what? A physician could give you any sort of internal exam against your will, and if it injured you permanently, so what, since you're not going to die. A person who needed a blood transfusion to live could force you bodily to be hooked up to him or her, even for nine months, and drain you of energy and make you sick and so what, even if there is a risk that you could be permanently physically disabled, and so what? You still get to live.

I would not want to continue living in a world where people have the right to do that to me or anyone. It not only violates persons physically but in other ways, including probably violating freedom of religion. There is a line somewhere in the New Testament that describes Satan as the force that makes your body act against your will, the implication being that both sin and disease come from the loss of rational individual control over one's own body. Though the US is not a Christian nation (no matter what some extremists think), I have no doubt that most US people read and were influenced by this concept and that is why bodily integrity and liberty have been so valued. And the idea that the right to life triumphs those values for most people is belied by their behavior whenever they are really threatened with the above. Sometimes, life just is not worth it.

 

[choiceone]

...or just go to one of the several states which offered elective abortion. No biggie. Roe herself never had an abortion and became a very involved pro-life activist, so no rational person can take the pro-choice movement seriously, especially with folks posting nonsense like you just did.

The individual person, Norma McCorvey, who was called Jane Roe for the purposes of the Roe v Wade case is a non-issue. She agreed to allow lawyers who wanted to challenge Texas abortion law in a class action suit to use her case merely as a representation of all cases of women who wanted abortions and were legally denied them. That is why the name Jane Roe was used. Norma McCorvey was not Jane Roe - Jane Roe was the name of all members of the class. Simply, without one individual willing to allow her case to be so used, it would not have been possible to challenge the law. But if Norma McCorvey had not agreed at the time, there were other women who would have been willing to let their cases be used.

 

[choiceone]

Considering you just previously posted here that the pro-choice side has a beef with the conservative compromise of these laws and you now post this obvious contradiction, well, that indicates more that you're the one who misunderstands in confusion.

... No, I'm not seeing a big win picture for the pro-choice side you're falsely attempting to paint. When I hear the pro-choice side say "we won", it's truly only a half-win, and that's clearly not good enough for them .. and, of course, pro-lifers are clearly not satisfied with their half-win either.

No. Most pro-choice people are not significantly annoyed by Webster or the other existing SC decisions, even though the extremists are. But all pro-choice people are concerned about the conservative attacks on the recognized rights because state laws are being made all over the country which actually contradict the rights recognized by the SC.

The anti-choicers hope to elect an anti-choice president who will pack the Supreme Court with anti-choice justices and hope that their outrageous state laws will be challenged legally so that some case will go to the SC and abortion will be made illegal by the SC itself. Moreover, those anti-choice people have previously engaged in many illegal acts to suppress the vote, even the vote of deployed soldiers. They do this even though they know someone will have to take the fall and possibly go to jail for it, because the illegal acts will allow them to win, and they can compensate the guy who goes to jail after the fact.

They are now exploiting every possible legal means to suppress the vote: voter ID laws to prevent more young people, poor people, and minorities, from voting (and are virtually poll taxes); gerrymandering of districts to prevent representation of their opposition in the government; and laws to change electoral college representation (changing from status as winner-takes-all states to states apportioning electoral representation by districts won); making laws that make it almost impossible to help voter registration.

Moreover, the political party representing the anti-choice stand is the party to which the CEOs of electoral voting machine manufacturers belong, and those companies have in some cases demanded that their technicians be the only people allowed to check whether the machines work, so as to protect their patents. Legal cases have brought out the fact that it would very easy for these companies to use the machines themselves to cheat in elections.

In the 2010 election, the candidates of that party falsely represented themselves in campaigns, saying they were running because what they were concerned about was the economy and jobs, but one of the first and main things they did in office was to produce anti-choice-related legislation (over 1,000 anti-choice-related bills were introduced across the US in a single year). Anti-choice spokespeople like Huckabee, before that election, publicly advised members of that party to prevent the neighbors whom they knew to be for the opposition from voting, recommending that they lie and say the election was on a different day, or otherwise obstruct them from getting to the polls.

These people are literally acting against the letter and the spirit of representational democracy, and they do not care.

Meanwhile, very few cases of voter fraud or election cheating have been found for the opposition, which has been more concerned with assuring that people with the right to vote actually get to vote and helping to register them and get them to the polls.

 

[choiceone]

Not from what I've read in these threads. The pro-choice side is very concerned about the legitimate state interest to protect prenatal life, the stipulation that viability includes by artificial means, that medical science is pushing viability further back as time passes, the stipulation that abortion of viables sanctioned by appeal to a woman's health issues must reasonably present those issues as serious and grave as well as permanent should abortion not occur all as determined by licenced medical health professionals (one of your personal pet peeves!), that Roe itself stands on very shakey legal ground not at all comfy to pro-choicers, that personhood for prenatals is not that far off and may function to overturn/rewrite Roe et al in a way pro-choicers will most certainly not like ...

Medical science cannot push viability back further than sufficient lung development without developing artificial wombs that actually work, and if they do, and other scientists figure out how to make non-human ZEs continue to grow outside females without using some of their endometrial tissue, these advances will still not be able to challenge a woman's right to security of her own person. Medical science would have to develop ways of removing the embryo without killing it or removing part of her tissue along with it. In court, the sort of viability you are talking about would lose.

... No, I'm not seeing a big win picture for the pro-choice side you're falsely attempting to paint. When I hear the pro-choice side say "we won", it's truly only a half-win, and that's clearly not good enough for them .. and, of course, pro-lifers are clearly not satisfied with their half-win either.

Hardly .. but, even if that was true, are you really all that much about winning at the expense of your adversariy's core values that are really not mutually exclusive with you pro-choicers' core values in this matter? If so, you can hardly rightly lay claim to the OP's poll-option #1 as you did.

I do not care about the adversary's core values, because some of them want to force women to carry dead fetuses to term because cows and pigs do it - that is hardly concern with life. And I'm not at all afraid of the research on both woman and EF, because I do not think medical science will be able to dispense with female bodies to grow EFs for a long time. During pregnancy, an EF gets more than nutrients and oxygen from the mother - it starts to receive some immunities, just as the infant receives immunities via breastfeeding for the first two-three months after birth. The more research there is, the more the impartial truth will come out.

I honestly have faith that it will show that a Z+, though it may be a living human organism, cannot develop into an actual living human being without the contributions of the woman during the pregnancy, that mere "male spermatic fertilization of a female ovum" and "unique DNA" are not the true origin of what can be called a human being. That is, I seriously doubt that we come from mere sex acts. We are, I think, more likely to come from a living sacrifice on the part of a living human being. The only question, then, would be whether that living sacrifice would come from force as involuntary servitude or from genuine freedom issuing in love.

 

[choiceone]

Though you most certainly erroneously exaggerate here about who is labeling whom what, and if an accurate count of these concerns were taken of real pro-lifers the percentages would most certinaly be lower, you misunderstand the pro-life side, as they are not all saying that every Z+ cannot be aborted.

No, as everyone knows, your pro-life opposition wants all or nearly all conceptions/pregnancies brought to term. Those who are still rightly pro-life and allow for the tiny "nearly all" percentage are resigned to the kinds of abortions which you list that are indeed tiny percentage-wise compared to the overwhelming percentage of both chemical and surgical abortions performed for reasons essentially all pro-lifers object to abortion: as merely another method of birthcontrol and for relative conveniency's sake that is thereby unconjecturably unjustified homicide in the pro-life camp.

But your two statements here reflect underlying confusion, as previously you stated that, in effect "we won and they lost", but now you're essentially contradicting your own statement by erroneously implying that a ton of pro-lifers don't really see themselves as "losers".

Much concoction of sophistry doth make thee mad -- you can't have it both ways in your war.



Relevantly meaningless.

Whether or not some pro-lifers think abortion is situationally a form of unjustifiable homicide like murder or manslaughter, or that the overwhelming great majority of pro-lifers find it situationally to be unjustified homicide, or that some situationally find abortion to be justifiable homicide, is really neither here nor there without grasping the comparatively large percentage of pro-lifers that find abortion for reasons of birth control and convenience the unjustifiable taking of a prenatal's life. You must take all pro-lifers into accurate consideration or you're not only just contriving a falsehood but creating a laughably inaccurate picture of your opposition.

Thus, obviously, your sophismistic attempt to redefine "pro-life" to be something that it oviously truly isn't, has been rejected.

Your polarized opposition exists and is real, and denial of that fact is futile.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and "sophismistic" is not a real word, so I have no idea what that is, either, as it is not just an obvious misspelling. I have been saying that I do not believe that "pro-lifers" have a winning case, so I believe that unless they cheat and bully their way into power, as they have tried to do in the past, they will lose. Even if they appear to get into power by cheating, they will have no power in truth, so if it then looks like they are temporarily winning, they will still be losers. I think they are cheap, cheating, vulgar, ignorant materialists with a pathological fear of death. Everyone has to face death at one time or another, even Jesus did it. To be so afraid of that which attacks all living forms universally, even the forms of those who demonstrate more truth, love, liberty, and beauty than anyone else, that they are willing to lie, cheat, coerce, and violate others, is, frankly, pitiable. It is to imagine that truth is on the side of ignoble character. I may think that those who get abortions for mere "convenience" are disgusting, but I also know that many women who get them have more noble motives, and I do not trust pro-lifers to decide what reasons are noble because I have never read or heard such a pack of riff-raff in my life.

 

[choiceone]

1. I don't care if its recognized as a person as that is just meaningless gibberish as I have said before.
2. Using your body to violate the rights of another is not a right at all.
3. The act of it being inside the woman is not comparable to assault and it does not violate any of her rights doing so it does not cause destruction against her. Furthermore, its a natural occurrence that she decided on most likely, not the baby.

I still say that it is the EF who is violating the rights of another and the act of it being inside and attached to the woman against her will and its attack on her immune system are physical assault. I say it does violate her rights and that some women die or are permanently physically disabled in disgusting ways by carrying pregnancies to term. Furthermore, a woman who is raped was denied even her right not to have sex, and consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

 

[choiceone]

DNA is what makes us human. Consciousness is only a condition of stages its relevant in.

There is, for many of us, a distinction between being human (adjective) or a human organism (noun) and being a genuine human being. My guess is that you emphasize DNA because, being male, it is all you contribute to reproduction. That said, many men do not so over-emphasize DNA, and my guess is that is because they actually respect and recognize women as equal human beings.


That makes no sense.

If it is living it is living human.

If it has consciousness or not it is human.

If it is dead it is a dead human.

None these conditions cause the human to forfeit their species state.

Actually, doctors have to make decisions as to whether or not people have died, and these decisions have actually become more and more difficult because some people who appear to be dead clinically revive - and the amount of apparent dead time has significantly increased. The last credible case I heard of - about 10 or so years ago, concerned a woman who had been pronounced dead 3 1/2 hours before reviving, and with no brain damage. So brain death has come to be the key criterion in medicine for death.

And no, the humans do not lose their human status by losing life or consciousness. That is not a reason to demand, as some do, that women carry dead fetuses to term, as cows and pigs do, nor to demand that they bring every non-viable ZEF to term that does not miscarry - abortion is allowed to save the health of cows and pigs, but not women? And why would you save the life of a ZEF at the expense of a woman's sanity?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I think a lot of men can't conceive of how much - and to what extent - a woman is affected, physically and emotionally, by pregnancy and all other things revolving around birthing/rearing (nursing - postpartum issues - so on).

Just as I'll never understand how it feels to be physically disconnected from the whole process and to be able to set it in motion without having to be involved after that.

Which is why more men tend to be vocal in the pro-life side of the issues . . . they have a very difficult time understanding what pregnancy and all that (wanted or not, planned or not - doesn't matter) actually does to a person.

I think some men see pregnancy - and sometimes are completely unchanged and uneffected by the process except maybe financial issues (example would be a not-there father who only pays child support) - and simply cannot understand or comprehend everything that's happening. Being so physically removed from everything I see how some only see it in black-and-white: *grown female* vs *infant* - and if the grown female doesn't handle the situation in the same way the man (being more removed from the experience) imagines it should be handled: his sense of understanding or connection to the female amid the situation ends and instead goes to the infant which, being an innocent being, makes more logical sense in it's functions.

This lack of understanding is why so many pro-life male advocates use phrases like "I can't understand how she couldn't want her child" - or (as is seen in the rape-debates): where the pro-life male cannot comprehend why a woman wants nothing to do with the idea of conceiving and carrying the offspring of a rapist (and so on): obviously men in these situations are only seeing the female as he imagines she should behave: not actually how she is as a person trying to deal with a difficult situation.

I've been there: seen it - some men tend to detach from a relationship between him and the female completely if something happens: and the female begins to behave differently than the man is behaving (hormones, physical health in decline, physical changes - all this - men don't get much of it). Which is why you have a smaller number of men trying to maintain a relationship with his child if he and the female no longer are 'together' in the same way: complete break in the relationship for him mentally - and he can't reconcile his own issues with her.

So - Psychologically: when the female changes or struggles instead of being supportive some men disconnect because it's beyond their understanding and adaptation to understand or try to see what she's really dealing with.

In response to this situation: these females - without any support or understanding from their partner - tend to fall deeper into their issues. . . which is where many abortions come into the situation: why would a woman want to continue if he's already quit the effort?

 

[AGENT J]

I think a lot of men can't conceive of how much - and to what extent - a woman is affected, physically and emotionally, by pregnancy and all other things revolving around birthing/rearing (nursing - postpartum issues - so on).

Just as I'll never understand how it feels to be physically disconnected from the whole process and to be able to set it in motion without having to be involved after that.

Which is why more men tend to be vocal in the pro-life side of the issues . . . they have a very difficult time understanding what pregnancy and all that (wanted or not, planned or not - doesn't matter) actually does to a person.

I think some men see pregnancy - and sometimes are completely unchanged and uneffected by the process except maybe financial issues (example would be a not-there father who only pays child support) - and simply cannot understand or comprehend everything that's happening. Being so physically removed from everything I see how some only see it in black-and-white: *grown female* vs *infant* - and if the grown female doesn't handle the situation in the same way the man (being more removed from the experience) imagines it should be handled: his sense of understanding or connection to the female amid the situation ends and instead goes to the infant which, being an innocent being, makes more logical sense in it's functions.

This lack of understanding is why so many pro-life male advocates use phrases like "I can't understand how she couldn't want her child" - or (as is seen in the rape-debates): where the pro-life male cannot comprehend why a woman wants nothing to do with the idea of conceiving and carrying the offspring of a rapist (and so on): obviously men in these situations are only seeing the female as he imagines she should behave: not actually how she is as a person trying to deal with a difficult situation.

I've been there: seen it - some men tend to detach from a relationship between him and the female completely if something happens: and the female begins to behave differently than the man is behaving (hormones, physical health in decline, physical changes - all this - men don't get much of it). Which is why you have a smaller number of men trying to maintain a relationship with his child if he and the female no longer are 'together' in the same way: complete break in the relationship for him mentally - and he can't reconcile his own issues with her.

So - Psychologically: when the female changes or struggles instead of being supportive some men disconnect because it's beyond their understanding and adaptation to understand or try to see what she's really dealing with.

In response to this situation: these females - without any support or understanding from their partner - tend to fall deeper into their issues. . . which is where many abortions come into the situation: why would a woman want to continue if he's already quit the effort?

Great post but I think its more they simply dont care, they have an opinion and they want that opinion forced on you and they couldnt care less about your pain, suffering and current rights and freedoms. They are meaningless to these people.

 

[Tucker Case]

Once more, the history of political demagoguery proves you wrong. As do any number of historical examples of both brainwashing and indoctrination.

It proves me wrong if one absolutely rejects all of what I said and replaces it with something entirely different.

But of course, since it has nothing to do with what I actually said in any way, it doesn't prove me wrong.

Because there is no conclusion without premises. Having been rejected as invalid, they go unsubscribed. Hence, no conclusion.

You do not know what logical validity is. Look it up before making claims about it.

Very simple really. It's odd that you should be struggling here.

I'm not struggling at all. What logic did you emply to reach that silly conclusion? It's definitely unsound logic, and quite possibly invalid as well.

Validity being that which goes subscribed.

You do not know the defintiion of logical validity.

Yes, your definition differs from my own;

rof it's not my definition, it's the definition of logical validity. You are using the wrong word to describe what you are attempting to describe.

hence why I've made the distinction between logic which applies, and that which does not.

Ah, so you are engaging in the fallacy of equivocation to pretend that you have made a point. I see.

This is why you fail to comprehend how logic is inconsistent with morality.

I failed at nothing. You used fallacious (aka. invalid) logic to make your argument, adn as such, it fails to support your conclusion. Even if we assumed that your premises are true (although they can't be when equivocation is the fallacy) and the conclusion is true (which is not likely since I am the only one of us who has demonstrated any understanding of logic), you have failed to present an intelligent argument for it.

There is no logic here; it's inapplicable.

You are confusing a lack of sound logic with a lack of any logic. Logic includes bad logic, such as the bad logic you have employed in your argumetn here, for example. Just because it is bad logic doesn't mean it is not logic.

Were moral arguments logical, they could be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

Where on Earth did you get that silly idea?

No one argues the boiling point of water

Serious question: Do you even know what logic is? Because this question doesn't actually serve any purpose in our debate.

it's 'subscribed' to universally.

What's the boiling point of water at the bottom of the ocean? One mile above sea level? Is that in Celsius or Fahrenheit? Kelvins perhaps?

I guess what I'm saying is what do you mean by 'subscribed' to universally, exactly?

See how that works?

Not really, but that's because it doesn't make any sense.

Oh, and there is no structure without content.

lol wut?

Stop flailing.

lol wut?

And so a child's ice cream preference may be rejected as being illogical?

Of course not. A child's ice cream preference is definitely based on logic, though.

Or a bereaved widow's grief may be also be illogical?

What unsound logical syllogism are you using to come to that erroneous conclusion? I would like to determine if it is invalid as well as unsound.

Seriously, dude. You've become so irrevocably mired in the pursuit for logic, that you fail to see the wood for the trees.

What unsound logical syllogism are you using to come to that erroneous conclusion? I would like to determine if it is invalid as well as unsound.

There is no logic here.

don't be so hard on yourself. Just because you use logic poorly doesn't mean that you don't use logic. You can certainly improve with some practice.

Curious. How much more rudimentary is making the leap to understand how morality and emotions are not logical?

You don't know what rudimentary means either, do you?

Juvenile face-saving evasion.

rof providing you with knowledge when after have demonstrated ignorance is not "juvenile face-saving evasion".

You said 'screaming obscenities'. Meaning insults.

Why would "obscenities" mean something other than what "obscenities" means simply because people are screaming it?

Anyone reading that could see what you meant.

False. We have clear evidence that you did not know what I meant.

Stop it. This looks desperate now.

You said 'screaming obscenities'. There is nothing whatever ambiguous about that.

I never said it was ambiguous. It's quite clear... to someone who isn't ignorant of what the definition of obscenity is. It's not my fault you just happened to be that person for whom it was unclear.

To this point, I've contributed to the debate under discussion, which is abortion. Whereas all you've managed to achieve is some stillborn deflection, on the basis of a (now undermined) grievance. That grievance being your now disproven interpretation that the debate is one of 'screaming obscenities' and 'lack of logic'.

Disproven. You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

You haven't debated the issue at all;

This should be interesting. What issue do you think is being debated in this thread entitled "why do you post abortion threads"?

opting instead to derail the entire issue in terms of a logic that cannot apply,

What imaginary thing have you decided that I am "derailing" here, exactly?

and resorting to insinuations of intellectual inferiority on the part of those who disagree.

What flawed logic did you use to achieve this erroneous conclusions?

At most, I have pointed out the high likelihood that a lack of knowledge is present in your argumetns.

However, a lack of knowledge is not indicative of intellectual inferiority. You may very well be my intellectual superior, but you most definitely do not have more knowledge about logic than I do at this time. This is indicated by your repeated misuse of the term "validity" as it relates to logic, and your non sequitur questions about such things as the boiling point of water (presumably at sea level on Earth). You can overcome a lack of knowledge through education, whereas intellectual inferiority is something that one cannot really overcome. No amount of education will make an intellectual inferior an equal or a superior.

Why do you appear to be under the impression that knowledge equals intelligence?

Guess what. I ain't the one rabble-rousing here.

You certainly aren't debating if you are just making things up willy nilly and pretending they are true, so what exactly would you call what you are doing?

 

[Ikari]

I think a lot of men can't conceive of how much - and to what extent - a woman is affected, physically and emotionally, by pregnancy and all other things revolving around birthing/rearing (nursing - postpartum issues - so on).

Just as I'll never understand how it feels to be physically disconnected from the whole process and to be able to set it in motion without having to be involved after that.

Which is why more men tend to be vocal in the pro-life side of the issues . . . they have a very difficult time understanding what pregnancy and all that (wanted or not, planned or not - doesn't matter) actually does to a person.

I think some men see pregnancy - and sometimes are completely unchanged and uneffected by the process except maybe financial issues (example would be a not-there father who only pays child support) - and simply cannot understand or comprehend everything that's happening. Being so physically removed from everything I see how some only see it in black-and-white: *grown female* vs *infant* - and if the grown female doesn't handle the situation in the same way the man (being more removed from the experience) imagines it should be handled: his sense of understanding or connection to the female amid the situation ends and instead goes to the infant which, being an innocent being, makes more logical sense in it's functions.

This lack of understanding is why so many pro-life male advocates use phrases like "I can't understand how she couldn't want her child" - or (as is seen in the rape-debates): where the pro-life male cannot comprehend why a woman wants nothing to do with the idea of conceiving and carrying the offspring of a rapist (and so on): obviously men in these situations are only seeing the female as he imagines she should behave: not actually how she is as a person trying to deal with a difficult situation.

I've been there: seen it - some men tend to detach from a relationship between him and the female completely if something happens: and the female begins to behave differently than the man is behaving (hormones, physical health in decline, physical changes - all this - men don't get much of it). Which is why you have a smaller number of men trying to maintain a relationship with his child if he and the female no longer are 'together' in the same way: complete break in the relationship for him mentally - and he can't reconcile his own issues with her.

So - Psychologically: when the female changes or struggles instead of being supportive some men disconnect because it's beyond their understanding and adaptation to understand or try to see what she's really dealing with.

In response to this situation: these females - without any support or understanding from their partner - tend to fall deeper into their issues. . . which is where many abortions come into the situation: why would a woman want to continue if he's already quit the effort?

Wow, I’m not sure you could be anymore condescending if you tried. Kudos on that I guess. There are likely those who are disconnected, there are likely those who don’t care too much. But maybe, just maybe, there are actually those out there who believe in the cause they argue for. I know, radical concept, pro-lifer actually believing what they say. Blasphemy! But if perhaps we place the hyperbole aside for just a little bit, we can entertain the notion that there may be a good number of pro-life individuals, even males (whom apparently according to you have little to no ability of reason or empathy), may actually subscribe to their own arguments. In that, life begins at conception, that it’s an actual life and we should do what we can to protect it as best we can. Human life does carry with it some amount of dignity, perchance a little respect for that dignity?

The wide sweeping generalizations and quite frankly insulting manner by which you tried to group the entirety of male pro-life individuals is nothing more than a plea for others of your side to come and pat you on the back. It advances no argument, in fact the overall negative and hostile demeanor of the argument itself would only encourage more hostility and friction in an argument. This sort of self aggrandizing preaching is transparent as an attempt to merely dig at the other side without having to engage in any actual argument or attempt any form of logic.

Well I suppose there are those on both sides whom engage similarly; but that may have a lot more to do with the fact that the abortion debate really is essentially over and now we’re all just pissing and moaning about our own specific views and how the world doesn’t hold up to it. Though it is often said that a good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, and that may just be what we have here.

 

[tecoyah]

Great post but I think its more they simply dont care, they have an opinion and they want that opinion forced on you and they couldnt care less about your pain, suffering and current rights and freedoms. They are meaningless to these people.

They do not love their wives. Never think of Mom....and have not talked to their sisters in quite a while.


Yeah....I'm talkin' to YOU

 

[nota bene]

Yet, scientifically accurate.

Sez you. A person doesn't lose his or her humanity because of "persistent vegetative state." A human being is exactly that from the moment of conception until death.

How sickening that you would deprive a human being of his or her humanity because of this.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Wow, I’m not sure you could be anymore condescending if you tried. Kudos on that I guess. There are likely those who are disconnected, there are likely those who don’t care too much. But maybe, just maybe, there are actually those out there who believe in the cause they argue for. I know, radical concept, pro-lifer actually believing what they say. Blasphemy! But if perhaps we place the hyperbole aside for just a little bit, we can entertain the notion that there may be a good number of pro-life individuals, even males (whom apparently according to you have little to no ability of reason or empathy), may actually subscribe to their own arguments. In that, life begins at conception, that it’s an actual life and we should do what we can to protect it as best we can. Human life does carry with it some amount of dignity, perchance a little respect for that dignity?

The wide sweeping generalizations and quite frankly insulting manner by which you tried to group the entirety of male pro-life individuals is nothing more than a plea for others of your side to come and pat you on the back. It advances no argument, in fact the overall negative and hostile demeanor of the argument itself would only encourage more hostility and friction in an argument. This sort of self aggrandizing preaching is transparent as an attempt to merely dig at the other side without having to engage in any actual argument or attempt any form of logic.

Well I suppose there are those on both sides whom engage similarly; but that may have a lot more to do with the fact that the abortion debate really is essentially over and now we’re all just pissing and moaning about our own specific views and how the world doesn’t hold up to it. Though it is often said that a good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, and that may just be what we have here.

I was trying to be impersonal - and emphasized with the term 'some' (etc) that I wasn't referring to all pro-life males.

I was, however, trying to discuss why some (emphasis) pro-life males dwell on the fact that they 'can't understand' (which they often say quite openly) or seem to be more concerned with the condition and life of the unborn rather than the condition and life of the mother.

There are some - and it's nice to see it when they speak up - some pro-life males who do understand and are supportive while still holding that pro-life view. There's a huge difference in what they talk about in debates, how they say what they feel, and how they respond.

The former use negatives and blanket statements that sometimes encroach on wanting to punish women for their abortion-reponse to said issues in a relationship/pregnancy (example are the ones who say a woman who has an abortion should be killed = no attempt to understand the situation) . . . . and the later who try to avoid such negative blanket statements and try to be supportive and understanding regarldes of the abortion as an action.

 

[AGENT J]

They do not love their wives. Never think of Mom....and have not talked to their sisters in quite a while.


Yeah....I'm talkin' to YOU

LOL well this is a little dramatic for my taste and I cant say I agree or disagree BUT theres enough logical evidence to at least agree that what you are saying is "possible"

 

[tecoyah]

Sez you. A person doesn't lose his or her humanity because of "persistent vegetative state." A human being is exactly that from the moment of conception until death.

How sickening that you would deprive a human being of his or her humanity because of this.

Uh...ever heard of "LAW"...because it says you are totally wrong.

But hey...why pay attention to reality, it kinda sux.

 

[choiceone]

I think a lot of men can't conceive of how much - and to what extent - a woman is affected, physically and emotionally, by pregnancy and all other things revolving around birthing/rearing (nursing - postpartum issues - so on).

Just as I'll never understand how it feels to be physically disconnected from the whole process and to be able to set it in motion without having to be involved after that.

Which is why more men tend to be vocal in the pro-life side of the issues . . . they have a very difficult time understanding what pregnancy and all that (wanted or not, planned or not - doesn't matter) actually does to a person.

I think some men see pregnancy - and sometimes are completely unchanged and uneffected by the process except maybe financial issues (example would be a not-there father who only pays child support) - and simply cannot understand or comprehend everything that's happening. Being so physically removed from everything I see how some only see it in black-and-white: *grown female* vs *infant* - and if the grown female doesn't handle the situation in the same way the man (being more removed from the experience) imagines it should be handled: his sense of understanding or connection to the female amid the situation ends and instead goes to the infant which, being an innocent being, makes more logical sense in it's functions.

This lack of understanding is why so many pro-life male advocates use phrases like "I can't understand how she couldn't want her child" - or (as is seen in the rape-debates): where the pro-life male cannot comprehend why a woman wants nothing to do with the idea of conceiving and carrying the offspring of a rapist (and so on): obviously men in these situations are only seeing the female as he imagines she should behave: not actually how she is as a person trying to deal with a difficult situation.

I've been there: seen it - some men tend to detach from a relationship between him and the female completely if something happens: and the female begins to behave differently than the man is behaving (hormones, physical health in decline, physical changes - all this - men don't get much of it). Which is why you have a smaller number of men trying to maintain a relationship with his child if he and the female no longer are 'together' in the same way: complete break in the relationship for him mentally - and he can't reconcile his own issues with her.

So - Psychologically: when the female changes or struggles instead of being supportive some men disconnect because it's beyond their understanding and adaptation to understand or try to see what she's really dealing with.

In response to this situation: these females - without any support or understanding from their partner - tend to fall deeper into their issues. . . which is where many abortions come into the situation: why would a woman want to continue if he's already quit the effort?

I like this, but I note that female pro-lifers are absent here. There are extreme female pro-lifers, too. I think that some are women who have had only wanted or easy pregnancies and some who have carried unwanted ones to term. The latter have more of a self-interest in being pro-life the more unwanted the pregnancies were, because that ideology reaffirms the choice they made and thus their self-respect.

Re the distance that can result between the woman and man when the woman is pregnant. Do you know that the main cause of death for pregnant women in the US is partner/husband murder? Apparently, some men just cannot stand living with pregnant people?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Wow, I’m not sure you could be anymore condescending if you tried. Kudos on that I guess. There are likely those who are disconnected, there are likely those who don’t care too much. But maybe, just maybe, there are actually those out there who believe in the cause they argue for. I know, radical concept, pro-lifer actually believing what they say. Blasphemy! But if perhaps we place the hyperbole aside for just a little bit, we can entertain the notion that there may be a good number of pro-life individuals, even males (whom apparently according to you have little to no ability of reason or empathy), may actually subscribe to their own arguments. In that, life begins at conception, that it’s an actual life and we should do what we can to protect it as best we can. Human life does carry with it some amount of dignity, perchance a little respect for that dignity?

The wide sweeping generalizations and quite frankly insulting manner by which you tried to group the entirety of male pro-life individuals is nothing more than a plea for others of your side to come and pat you on the back. It advances no argument, in fact the overall negative and hostile demeanor of the argument itself would only encourage more hostility and friction in an argument. This sort of self aggrandizing preaching is transparent as an attempt to merely dig at the other side without having to engage in any actual argument or attempt any form of logic.

Well I suppose there are those on both sides whom engage similarly; but that may have a lot more to do with the fact that the abortion debate really is essentially over and now we’re all just pissing and moaning about our own specific views and how the world doesn’t hold up to it. Though it is often said that a good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, and that may just be what we have here.

The following does not speak for Auntie in any way. She's already responded. This is just my response.

To be honest, I think what you've said here demonstrates that disconnect perfectly.

She didn't necessarily say men are unfeeling. Just that they can't comprehend what pregnancy actually is for women. If they could, it would be far more difficult for them to side with a fetus over a woman.

It is simple to comprehend the idea of "infant." Little human being. A lot of anti-choicers comprehend it incorrectly by making two false assumptions: one is that an infant is like an adult only without knowledge, and the other is that a fetus is the same as an infant. Neither happen to be true, but they think it is, and it's easy for them to comprehend. They were children once. This they can understand - or at least think they do.

The idea of pregnancy is beyond what men have any reference for (read the rest of this before you yell at me). It can be viewed in many different lights by women. Anything from the experiencing of divine creation and the bringing of perfect potential, to the ravaging of a parasite attempting to assault her body, and everything else in between. But whatever it is, few women are ambivalent towards it.

Women have a reference point for this idea. Even women with no children. I think we have this reference point partly because of an innate biological understanding of our bodies, but also because of how we experience sex and menstruation.

Men don't. They have no reference point. But I can tell you one thing: I have met few men who feel as strongly about pregnancy and childbirth, in any way, as most women do. It is not the same experience for them. It is not the same frame for debate for them. It is not the same, because they have no possible way of understanding it on an innate level.

There are men who admit this. They tend to be the ones who either have no position on abortion at all, or if they are pro-life, falter at the point at which they are asked if they would make their beliefs law - because they know somewhere inside themselves that they don't truly understand, and as such they feel the weight of forcing women into pregnancy when they don't understand what it's like for them.

I was reading a post on DP about men who lose their genitals from IED's in war. It's a type of injury that is new to recent warfare, and treatment options are few. The ones that do exist are mostly ineffective at bringing back any real sexual function.

Men suffer more from the lose of their genitals than they do from arm and leg amputation - even multiple limbs.

I do not understand this. Not on an innate level. I do not understand the connection men have with their penises, and I can't empathize directly with that.

But I believed them when they told the reporter about the anguish and the pain of it - how the pain of losing both their legs was dwarfed by the pain of losing their penis. "Who would want me," one of them asked. That broke my heart.

Not because I understand. I don't. But because I believe him when he tells me what it's like. And I understand pain, even if it's not that particular pain. I am not going to huff when a man says losing his penis was worse than losing multiple limbs, because I can't comprehend what it's like. I don't have a penis. I can't understand.

Anti-choice men refuse to listen to women when they tell them what it's like. They hold innumerable strange beliefs about fetuses, but fail to recognize the woman as the sentient being who is experiencing something so unwanted, and so intense, and so potentially devastating. All they see is the fetus, with a weirdly baby-like set of traits that real fetuses don't even possess (at least not at the time when abortions actually occur).

They can't relate to the woman, and they've decided not to relate to the pain (which they could if they wanted to). And thus the woman is invisible to them. They don't care what it's like for her. They refuse to even acknowledge what a harrowing experiencing pregnancy can be. They refuse to acknowledge that an unwanted pregnancy is the most intimate kind of assault, such that even if an embryo were a person, they would have no right to continue it - whether it's intended or not. The woman is not even there.

Nor can any anti-choicer I've ever met provide a good reason why life is inherently better than non-life, and why we have an obligation to bring any life into the world, let alone life that is unwanted and won't be well-provided for. No one can ever give me a good reason why potential life must by necessity become actual life - even if it is a doomed life.

Anti-choice women are harder for me to understand. But I do notice one thing: they debate distinctly differently from anti-choice men. It is not the same game to them. There are also fewer of them, which I can't say is surprising. I also notice another thing - many of them have intense feelings of either shame, or regret about their own decisions.

And, not all men think this way. But like I said - those who don't are much more hesitant to say they would outlaw abortion.

 

[choiceone]

It proves me wrong if one absolutely rejects all of what I said and replaces it with something entirely different.

But of course, since it has nothing to do with what I actually said in any way, it doesn't prove me wrong.



You do not know what logical validity is. Look it up before making claims about it.



I'm not struggling at all. What logic did you emply to reach that silly conclusion? It's definitely unsound logic, and quite possibly invalid as well.




You do not know the defintiion of logical validity.



rof it's not my definition, it's the definition of logical validity. You are using the wrong word to describe what you are attempting to describe.



Ah, so you are engaging in the fallacy of equivocation to pretend that you have made a point. I see.



I failed at nothing. You used fallacious (aka. invalid) logic to make your argument, adn as such, it fails to support your conclusion. Even if we assumed that your premises are true (although they can't be when equivocation is the fallacy) and the conclusion is true (which is not likely since I am the only one of us who has demonstrated any understanding of logic), you have failed to present an intelligent argument for it.



You are confusing a lack of sound logic with a lack of any logic. Logic includes bad logic, such as the bad logic you have employed in your argumetn here, for example. Just because it is bad logic doesn't mean it is not logic.



Where on Earth did you get that silly idea?



Serious question: Do you even know what logic is? Because this question doesn't actually serve any purpose in our debate.



What's the boiling point of water at the bottom of the ocean? One mile above sea level? Is that in Celsius or Fahrenheit? Kelvins perhaps?

I guess what I'm saying is what do you mean by 'subscribed' to universally, exactly?



Not really, but that's because it doesn't make any sense.



lol wut?



lol wut?



Of course not. A child's ice cream preference is definitely based on logic, though.



What unsound logical syllogism are you using to come to that erroneous conclusion? I would like to determine if it is invalid as well as unsound.



What unsound logical syllogism are you using to come to that erroneous conclusion? I would like to determine if it is invalid as well as unsound.



don't be so hard on yourself. Just because you use logic poorly doesn't mean that you don't use logic. You can certainly improve with some practice.



You don't know what rudimentary means either, do you?




rof providing you with knowledge when after have demonstrated ignorance is not "juvenile face-saving evasion".



Why would "obscenities" mean something other than what "obscenities" means simply because people are screaming it?



False. We have clear evidence that you did not know what I meant.



I never said it was ambiguous. It's quite clear... to someone who isn't ignorant of what the definition of obscenity is. It's not my fault you just happened to be that person for whom it was unclear.






Disproven. You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.



This should be interesting. What issue do you think is being debated in this thread entitled "why do you post abortion threads"?



What imaginary thing have you decided that I am "derailing" here, exactly?





What flawed logic did you use to achieve this erroneous conclusions?

At most, I have pointed out the high likelihood that a lack of knowledge is present in your argumetns.

However, a lack of knowledge is not indicative of intellectual inferiority. You may very well be my intellectual superior, but you most definitely do not have more knowledge about logic than I do at this time. This is indicated by your repeated misuse of the term "validity" as it relates to logic, and your non sequitur questions about such things as the boiling point of water (presumably at sea level on Earth). You can overcome a lack of knowledge through education, whereas intellectual inferiority is something that one cannot really overcome. No amount of education will make an intellectual inferior an equal or a superior.

Why do you appear to be under the impression that knowledge equals intelligence?



You certainly aren't debating if you are just making things up willy nilly and pretending they are true, so what exactly would you call what you are doing?

I would love to hear your view of the online lectures on the abortion issue in the Colorado philosophy course in ethics. The first lecture is below. Change the number if you want to keep going to the end.

http://www.spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/Abortion1.html

 

[JayDubya]

They do not love their wives. Never think of Mom....and have not talked to their sisters in quite a while.


Yeah....I'm talkin' to YOU

I love my equally libertarian, equally pro-life wife and my unfortunately mainstream Reepublican but also strongly anti-abortion mom very much, thanks.

(I guess they hate and want to control themselves, huh?)



After a post like that, I believe it goes without saying where you can stick your comments, and what unique sequences of profanity apply to you.

 

[minnie616]

I think that education and family planning could eliminate the need for an abortion the vast majority of the time.

In a perfect world every woman & man would have access to birth control and would use it correctly.
There would be no rapes, no incest, no accidental pregnanices and the only time an abortion would be needed would be if the women's life were in danger or if the fetus was so malforned that they would die within a few minutes or hours of birth.

 

[tecoyah]

I love my equally libertarian, equally pro-life wife and my unfortunately mainstream Reepublican but also strongly anti-abortion mom very much, thanks.

(I guess they hate and want to control themselves, huh?

After a post like that, I believe it goes without saying where you can stick your comments, and what unique sequences of profanity apply to you.

Your love for mother-...is obvious, love of wife is an absolute in marriage (regardless of political affiliation)

The rest of your diatribe (though far to short to be such)...seems an emotional outburst, rather than something worthy of addressing.

Insult is a very clear indication of desperation....please continue.

(I love this part )

 

[choiceone]

To Ontologuy and others interested in the definition of a human being by a professional anthropologist in relation to the abortion issue:

An anthropologist wrote a book on anthropology and ethics that has a few sections addressing pro-life and pro-choice perspectives on the abortion issue as debated in the US.

T.M.S. Evens. Anthropology as Ethics: Nondualism and the Conduct of Sacrifice. 2008.

In "Introduction: Nondualism, Ontology, and Anthropology," the author points out from the beginning two theses guiding the work's ontological reflections for anthropological practice. The first is, "when it is seen from the ontological perspective of nondualism instead of dualism, the distinctively human condition is, above and beyond all else, a condition of choice and a question of 'ethics.'" The second concerns the limits of dualism and, therefore, certain problems with Western dualistic logic and individualism.

This view of human beings as being more than mere biological organisms with distinctive DNA, as being grounded in a condition of choice in which there can be ethics, informs the author's brief glances at the US abortion debate positions. S/he thinks that the dualistic way of thinking in a market society leads to positions that fail to take account of the real significance of that condition. Pro-lifers imply that the pro-choice side has "equated abortion to shopping mall selection," i.e., arbitrary choice. The pro-life position, "by denying that something like abortion ought to be selective, takes life out of choice and as a result dehumanizes human or soulful existence." However, s/he also questions both sides of the debate, for both have failed to grasp the dilemma - "the sense of choice in which what is at stake is the creative capacity that is critical to the very meaning of human life." That dilemma involves "equally absolute obligations of soulful life on the one hand and the life of one's soul on the other." (citations from p. 7).

The problem for the pro-life side seems to be that the human fetus only has human value in having the capacity for "soulful life" grounded in the condition of choice (a future "soulful life"). But the woman is a human being who has a "soulful life," and denial of choice to her in unwanted pregnancy dehumanizes her by preventing her from pursuing her soulful life, which requires the condition of choice (including ethics) that is being denied. By this denial, one logically violates the ground without which the fetus could not have human value, either, beyond mere human biology.

 

[Tucker Case]

I would love to hear your view of the online lectures on the abortion issue in the Colorado philosophy course in ethics. The first lecture is below. Change the number if you want to keep going to the end.

http://www.spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/Abortion1.html

I actually thought that it was an excellent breakdown and showed that is it certainly possible to use logic to develop moral arguments from both perspectives. I pretty much agree completely with his assessment of the strengths and I'd even be willing to bet that I could find posts where I make some nearly identical points about the strengths and weaknesses of certain arguments.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading that, and I thank you for the link!

 

[Ontologuy]

The legal precedents saying that no person has a right to the use of another's body for life-support are easier to find, I admit, because there the parallel is clear - and probably enough to keep abortion legal.

I would like to see a reference to these cases. I'm trying to imagine under what circumstances, either normally or abnormally occuring, that there was a legal case about one person using another person's body for life-support? Conjoined twins? Both being persons is huge here, as both persons have the right to life.

However, there are legal precedents that say that no person has a right to put one of their body parts inside one of the body cavities of another without that other's consent - forced vaginal and anal penetration are considered rape, and the body part does not have to be a sex organ, and forced oral penetration or ear penetration would be considered legally a form of physical assault.

True, but "without the other's consent" implies both have will, as it takes will, so to speak, to direct the response of reacting to the consenter's will.

If a person suddenly appears inside another person, and the conscious process that brought that person there was consensual and where the subsequently greatly automatic biological processes that did the grunt work of manufacturering that person inside one of the people are understandably cooperative .. well, not seeing any precedents for that.

I mean, right now a ZEF, in law, isn't a person.

If it ever becomes one in law, wow -- whole new ballgame.

The only exceptions I know of, and they are highly unpopular, have to do with medical cases where the person whose body cavities are penetrated is unconscious or is considered medically to be legally incompetent temporarily or permanently because of some injury or disease

Not sure what you're referring to.

Could you provide a specific example complete with case law reference?

- or in cases in pregnancy where a woman does not want a caesarian and the doctor insists to save the life of the woman and/or fetus at the time of childbirth labor. While a person is conscious and one has no sound basis to claim his or her legal incompetence, nobody gets to have one of their body parts or even put an instrument inside of one's body. It's the basis for which one can refuse medical treatment, among other things.

In cases in pregnancy where a woman does not want a caesarian in childbirth labor, the doctor can insist on one to save the life of the fetus but could be sued if he or she were only insisting to save the life of the mother if she refused consent.

That may be, but in those instances there is no legal person inside the woman, historically.

Sure, legitimate state interest in protecting prenatal life could be invoked, though not without some justified challenge, perhaps.

But when the living human organism inside the woman is classified as a person according to law, then watch out for things like reckless endangerment and the like.

Whole new legal world.

In cases of infants and small children, one can do all sorts of things because they are not considered legally competent. But while a person of, say, sixteen or older and certainly a person who is an adult is conscious, if one has no sound basis to claim his or her legal incompetence, no one, not even a doctor, gets to have one of their body parts inside or even put some instrument inside of that person's body without their consent. It's the basis for which one can refuse medical treatment, among other things.

While a person is conscious and one has no sound basis to claim his or her legal incompetence, nobody gets to have one of their body parts or even put an instrument inside of one's body. It's the basis for which one can refuse medical treatment, among other things.

Interesting challenge.

If the living human organism inside her is deemed a person under law, then even if she is allowed to refuse treatment, and that prenatal person dies as a direct result, she would get immediately arrested for manslaughter .. or ever murder. But most likely she would be refused to refuse medical treatment, as otherwise those standing by watching her willfully kill the person inside her would rationally be accomplices to the crime.

Personhood changes everything, and I doubt, that thing considered, she would be allowed to elect refusal. If her life is not truly in danger and there is a way to save the other person, that other person's primary level right to life demands that she surrender her secondary level security as well as, of course, her tertiary level freedom.

If a postnatal person is mistreated by a parent to the death of that person, including mistreat of neglect, the same laws in that case would apply in your prenatal example.

A person is a person, all created equal, with an equal right to life, under the law.

The slippery slope here is that, if you override this, any would-be rapist could decide to rectally penetrate any man against his conscious will, any physical assaulter could forcibly hold your mouth open and punch you in the mouth and to h--- with your teeth because, after all, it won't kill you. Anyone could forcibly punch a finger in your ear and break your eardrum and so what? A physician could give you any sort of internal exam against your will, and if it injured you permanently, so what, since you're not going to die. A person who needed a blood transfusion to live could force you bodily to be hooked up to him or her, even for nine months, and drain you of energy and make you sick and so what, even if there is a risk that you could be permanently physically disabled, and so what? You still get to live.

No, these do not apply to our hypothetical prenatal person case, as none of these involve saving the life of a third party person against the will of the first two parties.

In your examples, it's only a two-person party case.

The new law affecting prenatal persons would not have any effect on these other case situations; no jurist would ever draw that analogy.

I would not want to continue living in a world where people have the right to do that to me or anyone.

What prenatal person law would do, as you've previously posted with exemplified exaggeration about sex strikes, would be to cause women to think twice before taking risks that could cause pregnancy.

Should they finally become available, the new pharmaceutical state-of-the-art conception prevention "pills" that are perfectly safe and effective would be the only "birth control pills" women would choose. I mean, considering the consequences, why would anyone want to use more dangerous old-tech with an unacceptable failure rate?!

These "pills" for both men and women, are presently in FDA testing.

Once released and on the market, even in anticipation of prenatal person law, .. well, talk about a cause to champion! Making these pills cheaply affordable and available to anyone who wants them, I can see both pro-choicers and pro-lifers banding together on that one.

If we have the evolution of intellect and emotion to recognize the personhood of prenatals, we owe it to us all to create and make prevalent our evolved medical technology in cooperative support.

It not only violates persons physically but in other ways, including probably violating freedom of religion. There is a line somewhere in the New Testament that describes Satan as the force that makes your body act against your will, the implication being that both sin and disease come from the loss of rational individual control over one's own body. Though the US is not a Christian nation (no matter what some extremists think), I have no doubt that most US people read and were influenced by this concept and that is why bodily integrity and liberty have been so valued.

Fortunately, America is indeed not a Christian nation, and the separation of church and state demands that our laws cannot decide in favor of one person who's Christian or of any religion over another person -- the prenatal person -- who's clearly not religious simply on the basis of the former being religious.

So appeal to religion or religious text or religious ideals will be unjustification for what would most surely then be manslaughter or murder of the prenatal person.

Again, prenatal personhood is simply a whole new kettle of .. angler fish.

And the idea that the right to life triumphs those values for most people is belied by their behavior whenever they are really threatened with the above. Sometimes, life just is not worth it.

Or "sometimes" it is worth it, but the challenge to live it requires both courage and respect.

Again, no one really knows the alternative to living life.

I mean, we could simply return our unique zero-point field frequency "soul" to the intergalactic dark matter where we previously were and resume working all the other non-corporeals to keep the galaxies from colliding and wiping out some pretty darn good vacation spots ..

.. Or something a bit more hellacious depending on depending on what we did here or whether we yet qualify for reincarnation or .. who really knows what ..

.. Or we might just simply cease to exist entirely, in the romantic Emersonian spirit.

Whatever, life is a pretty cool thing, if not too excessively painful.

I would argue against being compelled to self-destruction by outside forces.

Simply adjusting to our brave new world is preferable .. and does get easier with practice over time .. and with the support of all the rest of us.