If abortion only allowed for rape and incest

13,548 Views | 189 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Fre3dombear
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Coke Bear said:

Porteroso said:

Coke Bear said:

Porteroso said:

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.
Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

The SC can't determine personhood, it is a natural right. The government can't decide it. The people having the opportunity to decide it at the state level is the best thing for now. It makes it relatively stable and predictable, and reflects the societal will.

Deciding at the individual level, it would legalize murder. At the federal level, tyranny of the majority. State level solves this and many other issues.
If you are agreeing that it IS murder, why should it be allowed at all?

Killing a person is murder, so the only issue is when group of cells become people.
Only if you want to be correct legally and definitionally, but not morally/ethically. Your view is too shallow.

And technically murder is defined as the premeditated killing of another human being, not "person".

And yes in a state where abortion is legal, murder should be killing a person, not human life.
Or, in a state where abortion is legal, they have legalized murder because murder is killing a human life, not a state-sanctioned definition of a "person".

You are too shallow, now here you are also begging the question.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Coke Bear said:

Porteroso said:

Again, people have the right to live, not clumps of cells. We have to decide when we are people, and then the issue is clear. Doing so at the state level is good.
You keep call it a clump of cells to obscure the fact that an embryo, fetus, etc. is a human being. It is alive. It is growing. It has human parents. It is a human being.

A being is just existence. Rocks are beings, tables are beings. People are beings. People happen to be human beings.

A zygote, embryo, or fetus exist in the mother's womb. They are beings. They have human parents. They are human beings.

Let's use logic on this and define our terms, otherwise, we are simply talking past one another.

A 90 year old vegetable on life support is a human being, but no longer a person. That is why we can pull the plug. It is useful to differentiate the terms, and there is a logical basis to do so.

Yes an embryo is human life, but many do not view it as a person. That is the only discussion that matters, because proof or logic that says it is or is not a person helps us know what is Constitutional or not.
We don't "pull the plug" on someone in a vegetative state based on state-sanctioned definitions of "personhood". We do so because there comes a point when it is medically futile to continue with extreme intervention. We let a 90 year old vegetable die naturally; we are not killing them....this is in contrast to what you are doing to unborn children - you are actively killing them, and not letting them naturally live. The two situations are completely different and are not morally/ethically equivalent.

You concede that an embryo is a human life, but you are making artificial distinctions as to when a human life makes a "person", and basing the justification of killing that life solely on that. Again, you can't answer moral questions by using definitions. Why is it wrong to kill a "person", but not wrong to kill a human life?

There is no state sanctioned definition of personhood. There can't be.

We absolutely let families pull the plug when a person cannot be a person any longer, no matter the intervention of science and medicine.

Ectreme medical intervention will never be a bar for personhood. If it were, personhood would change as science and medicine improve.
You say "there can't be a state sanctioned definition of personhood", yet that's exactly what you're arguing for.

The argument was not that medical intervention determines "personhood". The argument was that the decision to stop intervention has nothing to do with any state approved definition of anything. Medical ethics are not based on legal definitions.

You worry about medical intervention changing, and thus making "personhood" a moving goalpost - yet that is what you arguing for by letting states decide for themselves what personhood is, because it'll be different from one state to the next. You also argue against the federal government deciding what a person is because it'll be a "tyranny of the majority", so you want the states to decide it for themselves - which will just be a tyranny of the majority at the state level.

You are a walking contradiction - EXACTLY like how you argued that parents should be blamed for voluntarily exposing their their kids to drag queens, yet the drag queens who are voluntarily exposing themselves to those parents' kids should NOT be. You are not logically coherent, and it really seems to be because you are deciding up front what you want to be true, and then you're figuring it out on the fly how to justify it, logical coherence being a side luxury.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Coke Bear said:

Porteroso said:

Coke Bear said:

Porteroso said:

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.
Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

The SC can't determine personhood, it is a natural right. The government can't decide it. The people having the opportunity to decide it at the state level is the best thing for now. It makes it relatively stable and predictable, and reflects the societal will.

Deciding at the individual level, it would legalize murder. At the federal level, tyranny of the majority. State level solves this and many other issues.
If you are agreeing that it IS murder, why should it be allowed at all?

Killing a person is murder, so the only issue is when group of cells become people.
Only if you want to be correct legally and definitionally, but not morally/ethically. Your view is too shallow.

And technically murder is defined as the premeditated killing of another human being, not "person".

And yes in a state where abortion is legal, murder should be killing a person, not human life.
Or, in a state where abortion is legal, they have legalized murder because murder is killing a human life, not a state-sanctioned definition of a "person".

You are too shallow, now here you are also begging the question.

Are you against pulling the plug on vegetables?
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Coke Bear said:

Porteroso said:

Again, people have the right to live, not clumps of cells. We have to decide when we are people, and then the issue is clear. Doing so at the state level is good.
You keep call it a clump of cells to obscure the fact that an embryo, fetus, etc. is a human being. It is alive. It is growing. It has human parents. It is a human being.

A being is just existence. Rocks are beings, tables are beings. People are beings. People happen to be human beings.

A zygote, embryo, or fetus exist in the mother's womb. They are beings. They have human parents. They are human beings.

Let's use logic on this and define our terms, otherwise, we are simply talking past one another.

A 90 year old vegetable on life support is a human being, but no longer a person. That is why we can pull the plug. It is useful to differentiate the terms, and there is a logical basis to do so.

Yes an embryo is human life, but many do not view it as a person. That is the only discussion that matters, because proof or logic that says it is or is not a person helps us know what is Constitutional or not.
We don't "pull the plug" on someone in a vegetative state based on state-sanctioned definitions of "personhood". We do so because there comes a point when it is medically futile to continue with extreme intervention. We let a 90 year old vegetable die naturally; we are not killing them....this is in contrast to what you are doing to unborn children - you are actively killing them, and not letting them naturally live. The two situations are completely different and are not morally/ethically equivalent.

You concede that an embryo is a human life, but you are making artificial distinctions as to when a human life makes a "person", and basing the justification of killing that life solely on that. Again, you can't answer moral questions by using definitions. Why is it wrong to kill a "person", but not wrong to kill a human life?

There is no state sanctioned definition of personhood. There can't be.

We absolutely let families pull the plug when a person cannot be a person any longer, no matter the intervention of science and medicine.

Ectreme medical intervention will never be a bar for personhood. If it were, personhood would change as science and medicine improve.
You say "there can't be a state sanctioned definition of personhood", yet that's exactly what you're arguing for.

The argument was not that medical intervention determines "personhood". The argument was that the decision to stop intervention has nothing to do with any state approved definition of anything. Medical ethics are not based on legal definitions.

You worry about medical intervention changing, and thus making "personhood" a moving goalpost - yet that is what you arguing for by letting states decide for themselves what personhood is, because it'll be different from one state to the next. You also argue against the federal government deciding what a person is because it'll be a "tyranny of the majority", so you want the states to decide it for themselves - which will just be a tyranny of the majority at the state level.

You are a walking contradiction - EXACTLY like how you argued that parents should be blamed for voluntarily exposing their their kids to drag queens, yet the drag queens who are voluntarily exposing themselves to those parents' kids should NOT be. You are not logically coherent, and it really seems to be because you are deciding up front what you want to be true, and then you're figuring it out on the fly how to justify it, logical coherence being a side luxury.

I feel like you are starting to understand natural rights! Congrats! Your childhood education failed you but I am able to step in.

I'll post more later, stay tuned.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Porteroso said:

Coke Bear said:

Porteroso said:

Coke Bear said:

Porteroso said:

The question of personhood may be semantics for a voter, but it is all that matters for the government, because legally any person is guaranteed the right to life. I guess I should have clarified that. I am not as interested in individual opinions as much as the arguments that satisfy the Constitution. An argument for or against, that satisfies the Constitution, is one that can actually become law, or come down as a SCOTUS ruling. Your moral view, in the grand scheme of things, to me, is semantics. You have one and so do 350 million others. Irrelevant.
Are you sure that you want the SC to determine what the Constitution says about personhood?

Didn't the Constitution say that slaves were only 3/5 persons?
Didn't 1940's Germany decide that Jews weren't persons?

Do you believe that by punting on personhood, you know deep down that the embryos are persons?

The SC can't determine personhood, it is a natural right. The government can't decide it. The people having the opportunity to decide it at the state level is the best thing for now. It makes it relatively stable and predictable, and reflects the societal will.

Deciding at the individual level, it would legalize murder. At the federal level, tyranny of the majority. State level solves this and many other issues.
If you are agreeing that it IS murder, why should it be allowed at all?

Killing a person is murder, so the only issue is when group of cells become people.
Only if you want to be correct legally and definitionally, but not morally/ethically. Your view is too shallow.

And technically murder is defined as the premeditated killing of another human being, not "person".

And yes in a state where abortion is legal, murder should be killing a person, not human life.
Or, in a state where abortion is legal, they have legalized murder because murder is killing a human life, not a state-sanctioned definition of a "person".

You are too shallow, now here you are also begging the question.

Are you against pulling the plug on vegetables?
nope, carnivore diet is better than eating vegetarian
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”

Jon Stewart
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TinFoilHatPreacherBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

Bestweekeverr said:

If a fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one, do you save the tray of 1,000 fertilized embryos or one baby?
One thousand children or just one child?


According to the supreme court they are the same. I think thats the problem with saying life starts at conception. A fertilized egg isnt a chicken


It's a reasonable question, but in life-saving extremes most Christians would argue that the life of the developed is worth saving over the undeveloped. For example, most men would choose to save their wife if birth was a death sentence for mom. So in the example above, a baby over eggs. It's not perfect, but it is reasonable to most. It should not be confused with killing the unborn for convenience.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Democrats would stop reproducing.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am pro life, but am going to present the medical side of this.

Source material: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7670474/

"Fertilisation occurs in the fallopian tube when sperm and egg meet and one sperm penetrates the egg: "This can be described as Time 0" j. The fertilised egg develops and becomes a blastocyst after 56 days. Around day 7, the blastocyst begins to implant into the lining of the uterus. During implantation, the embryo produces human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), detection of which "represents the first reliable opportunity to identify the existence of an embryo"

There is really no disagreement on this.

"Of those fertilised eggs, around 15% will be lost before implantation begins."

This is also correct, and just happens. An interesting aside, the article is about how advocates for the morning after pill presented false evidence in the legal case surrounding its approval in England.

So this really brings up the question of what constitutes the beginning of human life. Fertilization? Implantation? Clearly around week 5, 1/8th of the way through a pregnancy, when the baby has its own heartbeat, we are far down the road to a baby with its own soul.

But it is beyond my ability to say in the face of 15% of fertilized eggs spontaneously failing to implant what the supernatural status of one if them is and at what stage of the pre implantation process we are talking about a human soul.

My biggest issue with IVF is that a couple is trying to circumvent God's will for their life with regards to children, and we have a Biblical record of how that went with Abraham, Hagar. Ishmael, and Islam. There is a war going on in the middle east right now due to the downstream effects of that one bad decision. If you are a Christian couple considering IVF, don't. Wait to see if you have one. Prayerfully consider whether you should adopt. Oh. and give a potential candidate the Oreo cookie test if he or she is old enough to eat one before you pull the trigger.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

JXL said:

I would not be willing to require a rape victim to carry the criminal's baby to term.


Hard thing to tell a woman no doubt.

But is the child guilty of a crime?

Why should the child (possible a baby girl) die because the father is a rapist?
that is the philosophical argument at play. why punish the child?

we do have a sub-replacement birth rate.
we do need more babies.
could the mother not have the baby and give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it?

why is termination of the life of the baby the only choice here?


J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can only speak for myself. My Ex and I could not have kids for ten years or so. Did all the IVF and didn't take. The Good Lord blessed us one day with our adopted daughter when she was 2 days old. Her birth mother was in college and made an adoption plan as she knew she was in no place to be a mother and was not going to abort. As many times happens, our son showed up naturally 11 months later. Those 2 are a thick as thieves and ironically you could not tell that they were not bro and sis naturally. On the other hand one of my best friends has 40 eggs frozen as she got out of school a couple of years ago at 43 (she is one of the best 2 pediatric dermotnaligist in the world (smartest human I know) as she knew her clock was ticking. All that being said, I am very conflicted on the abortion issue. Have no answers.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

I can only speak for myself. My Ex and I could not have kids for ten years or so. Did all the IVF and didn't take. The Good Lord blessed us one day with our adopted daughter when she was 2 days old. Her birth mother was in college and made an adoption plan as she knew she was in no place to be a mother and was not going to abort. As many times happens, our son showed up naturally 11 months later. Those 2 are a thick as thieves and ironically you could not tell that they were not bro and sis naturally. On the other hand one of my best friends has 40 eggs frozen as she got out of school a couple of years ago at 43 (she is one of the best 2 pediatric dermotnaligist in the world (smartest human I know) as she knew her clock was ticking. All that being said, I am very conflicted on the abortion issue. Have no answers.
it's an issue where it's impossible for any one thinking hard on it NOT to be conflicted.

All the more reason not to have a federal mandate one way or the other. Let the state legislatures fiddle with it, experiment with it according to local sensibilities. Time & experience might teach us things.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[The Final Christian Generation Confronts What It Means To Lose A Culture War
Rod Dreher
Aug 30

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" Johnny Rotten.
So said the singer of the Sex Pistols at the end of what proved to be their final concert (follow the link to look at the clip). Pro-life supporters of Donald Trump have the right to say the same thing now.

You remember Florida, the state governed by Ron DeSantis, the sensible, competent, anti-woke, pro-life governor rejected by GOP presidential primary voters? That state, that guy? The one who signed into law a bill banning most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy? Well, Florida has on its fall ballot a measure that would restores the Roe status quo, overturning Florida's current law.

Here's Trump saying he'll probably vote for it. Screenshot above is from that interview. Richard Hanania is right:



Why should he stop? In each of the seven states in which an abortion referendum has been on the ballot since Dobbs, the pro-life side lost even in three red states.
Woke up this morning in Budapest to this astute slap-in-the-face analysis from a pro-life conservative friend back in the US:
Quote:

1. The pro-life movement wasn't anything approaching a majority and hasn't been for nearly a decade plus if not further, going back to 2015 and the left's decisive victory in the culture war. You can bemoan that, condemn it, and refuse to accept it, but you need to deal with actual electoral politics where they actually are as opposed to where you would prefer them to be from the 1980s to the Bush administration if you are running a political movement.

2. The entirety of pro-life politics after Dobbs was a master class in how not to run a movement. Rather than recognize the electoral realities and adapt to them, there was instead a clear attempt to implement laws, standards, and mores that were never going to prevail under current demographics, particularly in a hostile media and cultural environment. This is going to be true for any serious attempt to achieve cultural reversals, so the idea that this is limited to abortion politics is laughable. Exactly which conservative cultural cause can be championed without this kind of resistance?

3. The idea that this dooms the right in electoral terms is cope. Trump already has his personality cult, a solid 40% of the GOP, that will support more or less anything he wants. The pro-life movement is unable to muster the ability to achieve its preferred results in electoral terms in even the reddest of red states. At this point, abortion referendums are for the right what gay marriage referendums were for the left throughout the 2000s and unless the right is prepared to shift the culture they are going to continue to suffer defeat after defeat on this score.

4. The argument after Trump's 2016 win was that the cultural conservative "real America" can prevail against all the machinations of the left was always a self-serving cope. The left won the culture war and the Great Awokening occurred more or less on Trump's watch, with zero pushback or reversal. None of this has changed and cultural conservatives are in a worse position today than they were in 2016 by far, one that has not been helped by turning Trump into a cult icon.

5. Trump was never on the social conservatives' side. He courted them and sought their approval as a function of his desire for status, power, and his own aggrandizement. If they had achieved political results that could benefit him, he would still be seeking their support, but now he sees them as an obstacle and an embarrassment. If you are seeking to manipulate, influence, or transact business with Trump by all means flatter him, but always understand that he was never your friend and will always turn on you the moment you pose an obstacle to his ambitions.
....

I think it's over for the pro-life movement as a meaningful political force in national politics. We are seeing now that Dobbs was a Pyrrhic victory. It was a Pyrrhic victory because deep down, America is a functionally pro-choice, post-Christian nation. The Sexual Revolution has triumphed. It might not seem clear to you that there is anything connecting LGBT rights to abortion rights, but the truth is, both sets of laws come out of the majority view in America: that advancing sexual autonomy is the summum bonum of our public life. The Sexual Revolution was a cosmological one.

Did we pro-lifers really think we were going to be able to preserve the right to unborn life in a country that has abandoned the idea of legislating to restrict sexual morality? Justice Scalia warned that the Lawrence decision meant the end of morals legislation, and we are seeing that he was right. Did we really think that a country where quite a few people can't tell the difference between a man and a woman is going to be able to hold the line against killing unborn children to protect sexual autonomy? True, there is an organization called PLAGAL, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and God bless them for their work. But in the end, post-Christian America wants sexual freedom, in all its forms save for pedophilia (for now)....]
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And then there's this

Not only math but CDC math



 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.