Discussion Club: Abortion - A Fetus Being a Person Doesn't Justify Banning Abortion

[sandorski]

That’s my deep concern - not giving “personhood” to living humans is a thing history has always sided against.

The issue for me is what defines "Person". It's more than just being Human, it includes being somewhat Sentient and having Agency. Neither of those 2 things occurs until sometime after Birth and many Animal species exhibit both as well, so it is not cut and dry. That said, we have Legally adopted the more Ancient position that Birth is the point at which we grant Rights to the former fetus, although our Reasoning for it is quite different than that of the Ancients.

 

[kage69]

Women should not have a say regarding an unwanted guest in their bodies, even if it causes emotional and physical damage. Men, however, are entitled to Stand Their Ground and defend their Castles with deadly force against unwanted guests and all they need is the fear of being harmed. Funny how that works.

I find the typical religious social conservative to be a bewildering mess of falsehoods, contradictions and nonsense. I eagerly await the coming political blowback from all this fundie bullshit.

 

[Muse]

Women should not have a say regarding an unwanted guest in their bodies, even if it causes emotional and physical damage. Men, however, are entitled to Stand Their Ground and defend their Castles with deadly force against unwanted guests and all they need is the fear of being harmed. Funny how that works.

I find the typical religious social conservative to be a bewildering mess of falsehoods, contradictions and nonsense. I eagerly await the coming political blowback from all this fundie bullshit.

Woman is the Niggr (AT forced misspellings, can't spell it "nigge_"!!) of the World (by John Lennon and Yoko Ono)

Lyrics
Woman is the niggr of the world
Yes she is, think about it
Woman is the niggr of the world
Think about it, do something about it
We make her paint her face and dance
If she won't be aslave, we say that she don't love us
If she's real, we say she's trying to be a man
While putting her down we pretend that she is above us
Woman is the niggr of the world, yes she is
If you don't believe me take a look to the one you're with
Woman is the slave to the slaves
Ah yeah, better scream about it
We make her bear and raise our children
And then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only place she should be
Then we complain that she's too unworldly to be our friend
Woman is the niggr of the world, yes she is
If you don't believe me take a look to the one you're with
Oh woman is the slave to the slaves
Yeah, alright
We insult her everyday on TV
And wonder why she has no guts or confidence
When she's young we kill her will to be free
While telling her not to be so smart we put her down for being so dumb
Woman is the niggr of the world, yes she is
If you don't believe me take a look to the one you're with
Woman is the slave to the slaves
Yes she is, if you believe me, you better scream about it
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance

 

[Majes]

There's only one easy answer to this and that is leave the woman in charge of her own body. It's the simplest and most efficient solution legally.

But we know that easiest isn't always the best.

Personally I sympathize more with the unborn and find myself on the pro-life side. I happen to think that an unborn baby deserves a chance to realize its potential regardless of the circumstances or support it may receive. To have this taken away for any reason is an absolute tragedy.

That doesn't mean there aren't other tragedies that can take precedence though. A victim of rape or incest shouldn't be forced to carry to term. They should be educated and encouraged to make their choice before it causes actual pain to the baby. The same goes for a pregnancy that threatens the mother or even a pregnancy that will result in a baby with terrible health issues. Educate the mother or the parents involved and encourage them to make their choice quickly.

This is the best we can can do because in reality no matter what consequences the government imposes the woman still literally has the choice. The government is basically taking awful situations and making them worse when it should be educating and trying to help parents make informed choices.

 

[compuwiz1]

Her house, her rules.

So when I was growing up and being a little shit, I suppose when my mom said "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it" she meant it and would have been within her rights? lol

 

[ivwshane]

So when I was growing up and being a little shit, I suppose when my mom said "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it" she meant it and would have been within her rights? lol

Of course not. Do you even know anything about the constitution? Hint: it applies to all who are born in this country.

 

[ivwshane]

There's only one easy answer to this and that is leave the woman in charge of her own body. It's the simplest and most efficient solution legally.

But we know that easiest isn't always the best.

Personally I sympathize more with the unborn and find myself on the pro-life side. I happen to think that an unborn baby deserves a chance to realize its potential regardless of the circumstances or support it may receive. To have this taken away for any reason is an absolute tragedy.

That doesn't mean there aren't other tragedies that can take precedence though. A victim of rape or incest shouldn't be forced to carry to term. They should be educated and encouraged to make their choice before it causes actual pain to the baby. The same goes for a pregnancy that threatens the mother or even a pregnancy that will result in a baby with terrible health issues. Educate the mother or the parents involved and encourage them to make their choice quickly.

This is the best we can can do because in reality no matter what consequences the government imposes the woman still literally has the choice. The government is basically taking awful situations and making them worse when it should be educating and trying to help parents make informed choices.

You are being inconsistent. You claim you care about the unborn and believe they deserve a chance while at the same time you are willing to deny such sympathy and a chance for them to reach their potential due to circumstances beyond their control. Apparently murder is ok for you so long as YOU get to define the terms at which it happens. Which is totally fine if its your body you are burdening but it seems pretty fucked up to have someone impose their will/beliefs on someone else, let alone someone else who you have zero ties with.


If I believed sperm was the beginning of life, do you think I have the right to arrest you for murder when you don't impregnate an egg? Why not? Because my belief is ridiculous? What if 150 million people agreed with me?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Moonbeam's two successive posts had great insight.

But let's stop all of this confused nonsense.

Jefferson and the other Founders came up in the "Age of Reason". Anyone who thinks they meant to establish a "Christian" nation-state is blowing wind out their keester and trying to sell it to you as fact.

The created a SECULAR nation-state, based on a notion of "The Rights of Man [Person]", in the face of their own racist hypocrisy about slavery and the role of women as chattel. "Chattel" -- that's a word one might associate as a linguistic derivative of the word "cattle", but they are both derived from the same Latin word -- capitale or capitalis, from which we also have another derivative word -- "Capital" -- as in the title of Marx's book "Das Kapital" and "capitalism".

If they invoked God in our national archive documents, it occurred in the "Declaration of Independence". That was a common practice since the Magna Carta. It's purpose was to show respect to the King in a world that favored a "Divine Right of Kings". Hobbes did it "to Please your Majesty" and offering respect to God, but he was writing about the nature of the nation-state in a world where life was "brutish, nasty and short". It was therefore appropriate, writing to King George, that these conventions were used in the Declaration, and what better way to argue "the Rights of Man" than to say they were given by God?

Check and see, but I don't think God was invoked in the text of the Constitution. The Constitution begins with the words "We the People", proceeding with the purpose to form a "more perfect union". Arguments to the contrary, the best understanding of the Constitution's very nature defines it as a legal document -- a contract -- between each and every citizen with all other citizens. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood's memorable line from Unforgiven about the word "deserves" -- "God ain't got nothin' to do with it".

What is the objective and nature of Law in the secular nation-state? Simply, it is to define a framework of a civilized society which allows people to come and go freely to pursue their various interests without harm from other individuals. To quote, as I often do, the letter read in the saloon at end of the western "The Oxbow Incident", "What is the Law?" Here again is the excerpt:

"Law is a lot more than words you put in a book......or judges or lawyers or sheriffs you hire to carry it out.
It's everything people ever have found out about justice......and what's right and wrong.

"It's the very conscience of humanity.

"There can't be any such thing as civilization.....unless people have a conscience......because if people
touch God anywhere......where is it except through their conscience? And what is anybody's conscience...
...except a little piece of the conscience of all men that ever lived?"

Now here, in this movie script, we have a nexus between "God" and the Law. I won't call it a "confusion", but it's easy to become confused. The clarification arises from reference to "people", the "conscience of humanity", "a little piece of the conscience of all men that ever lived?"

The Secular State, treating all religions equally together with "no religion" or Atheism, creates Law which is the intersection of Laws set forth in many religious beliefs, with the intention of making it possible to maintain a civil order and allow people to come and go, following their individual pursuits -- as we said. That's why the nonsense the Righties pose of a threat that we'll be infected by "Sharia Law" is just that -- nonsense. We aren't going to have laws promoted by a few, yet offensive to many.

Now we have all sorts of arguments about "when a fetus becomes a person". And we've only admitted that people of different races and people of the "fairer sex" -- are people, equal to everyone else. Since 1776, those developments were more recent.

Consider again, a quote from the New Testament known to most all, when Jesus says "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's . . . " This is famously assumed to mean "pay your [freakin'] taxes!" But if Jesus meant that, then consider what Caesar, and the Emperor Caesars who followed, did all over the Mediterranean and Europe. The Caesars killed and probably exterminated millions of people. How could Jesus tell us to pay or taxes, when the end result would be murder, war, and genocide?

So it doesn't matter whether a fetus is a "person". It does matter, though, that a fetus is part of a woman's body, and women are no longer chattel -- to be directed to bear children or forbidden to abort fetuses. If I ask a doctor to cut off my balls, would it be legal and possible? Save that for another hair-splitting argument.

If abortion is murder, remember that the neo-Nazis are all enthralled with the good ol' days of the Gurreat Roman Empire, when they killed people for sport in the Coliseum. If it's permissible by the secular state to terminate a fetus -- and we still have this ongoing, obtuse and endless discussion about "when life begins" -- and if you think abortion is a sin or it's murder, then don't get an abortion! Anyone who gets an abortion may subscribe to all of those moral prohibitions, but do it anyway. People who think theft is wrong may still be shoplifters. People who believe in the Truth may still Lie.

We allow prostitution in Reno, gambling in Las Vegas, and all sorts of things that have religious, moral prohibitions. This is because we've decided that doing these things is not a threat to the civil order.

To prevent a woman from doing as she pleases with her own body, whether she sells her flesh or terminates a fetus, is a form of oppression, unless you subscribe to the idea that women are chattel.

That's why I now declare personal civil war against the Governor and Legislature of Alabama. Show up in my State for a vacation from Alabama while supporting its government on this issue, and, given the opportunity, I'll ruin your day when I can, humiliate you in public and call you out. I'll tell you "go back to your flyover white-trash red-state shithole, mix some Kool-Aid, and book a cruise to Hell for your whole degenerate family!"

Don't impose your religious beliefs on my freedom, even if I subscribe to the same beliefs. They aren't the religious beliefs of "every man". The secular state only defines a secular morality according to what is more common to all, ensuring the progress of civilization and the preservation of a nation-state's civil order.

 

[DrDoug]

There is nothing to discuss because a fetus is not a person. One of the Republican asshats that voted for the abortion ban in Alabama was asked about terminating an IVF fetus and according to him that doesn't matter because the baby isn't in a woman. That makes it abundantly clear that it's all about regulating the women.

There is no such thing as "pro-life" as long as the same person supports the death penalty. It's better to call them "pro-birth" or better yet, "forced birthers".

 

[cytg111]

There is nothing to discuss because a fetus is not a person. One of the Republican asshats that voted for the abortion ban in Alabama was asked about terminating an IVF fetus and according to him that doesn't matter because the baby isn't in a woman. That makes it abundantly clear that it's all about regulating the women.

There is no such thing as "pro-life" as long as the same person supports the death penalty. It's better to call them "pro-birth" or better yet, "forced birthers".

Its like this flock of "If Trump can bring the stupid out, so can I!" ... amazing.

 

[Muse]

There's only one easy answer to this and that is leave the woman in charge of her own body. It's the simplest and most efficient solution legally.

But we know that easiest isn't always the best.

Personally I sympathize more with the unborn and find myself on the pro-life side. I happen to think that an unborn baby deserves a chance to realize its potential regardless of the circumstances or support it may receive. To have this taken away for any reason is an absolute tragedy.

Don't you realize that it's a tragedy for a child to be brought up by a mother that would have preferred to have an abortion? It's A BIGGER TRAGEDY.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

There is nothing to discuss because a fetus is not a person. One of the Republican asshats that voted for the abortion ban in Alabama was asked about terminating an IVF fetus and according to him that doesn't matter because the baby isn't in a woman. That makes it abundantly clear that it's all about regulating the women.

There is no such thing as "pro-life" as long as the same person supports the death penalty. It's better to call them "pro-birth" or better yet, "forced birthers".

I don't know whether a fetus is a person. I know that fetuses can't vote, and it seems reasonable that a fetus isn't a "viable" person until they pop out of the womb. But a fetus is part of a woman's body until it does pop out of the womb . . .

It's fruitless to argue this. You have views of Christians and others on all sides. "When does the fetus have a soul?" "What if there are only a quarter-million cells in the fetus?" Since the existence of the soul cannot be scientifically proven, it's anyone's belief, and anyone's guess. I don't think Trump has a soul, but maybe that's besides the point. And if it's anyone's guess and anyone's belief according to their personal religion, don't impose your personal religious beliefs on the practical matter of secular government and secular law -- if too many others disagree. You can say secular Law has its origins in things like the Ten Commandments. Again, whether the Ten Commandments came from God is a matter of your belief.

If you don't believe it's right for gay fudge-packers and carpet-lickers to "marry", don't be a fudge-packer or carpet-licker, or if you accept the fact that fudge-packers and carpet-lickers can't help be what the are, then don't gay-marry, even if you're gay!

And if you're some cornpone, half-wit, bible-thumping twit, like Kim Davis, giving all your money to some mega-church evangelist to pay for his new Mercedes-Benz, and you're a civil servant responsible for handing out marriage licenses, then accept the simple common sense that you're not a participant in the fudge-packers' gurr-eat sin of fudge-packing and marrying. You're just passing out paper from a secular government which doesn't buy in to your cornpone, self-centered, half-wit worry about going to a bad place.

You're probably going there, anyway.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

if I had to guess how many women were participating in this thread, I'd have to say zero, maybe less.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

if I had to guess how many women were participating in this thread, I'd have to say zero, maybe less.

Well, I might agree, but we don't exactly have statistics to prove your hypothesis. They SHOULD be privy to the discussion, and we SHOULD solicit their opinion. I CAN'T have an abortion, being a male, because I can't conceive! Maybe the future holds a surprise for us if they can make men conceive, and the Bible Thumpers will be up in arms again and against transgenders who want to get preggers.

But at least I can argue on the behalf of women that they aren't chattel. I came up from the late '40s after being a fetus in 1946. I was a "little shaver" in the '50s, pounding my meat, squeezing my lizard and banging my baloney in the '60s, "on the hunt" according to the Lynyrd Skynyrd song in the '70s, working my ass off in the '80s, beginning to notice that Willie was tired in the '90s, organizing my porn collection after the millennium, and losing Microsoft Media Center for viewing it in the last year.

Women have the right to do with their bodies what they want. If they want to rip out a few fetus-cells and get their period back, it's their business. If abortion doctors have some religious conscience about ripping out fetus-cells, they shouldn't be in the doctor business, just as Kim Davis shouldn't have been in the marriage license business for giving fudge-packers marriage licenses.

It's a free country or so they say. But the GOP seems to want people to be less free with a lot of things, while enhancing the freedom of assholes like Donald Trump and Bernie Madoff. So F*** down the GOP, F*** down the governor and legislature of Alabama.

I'm freaking tired of the time-wasters worrying about their little consciences and personal beliefs, dominating the political landscape when we have real problems to solve -- from which those time-wasters want to hide by sticking their ostrich heads in the sand.

We'd be better off for trimming such people from the human evolutionary tree. Make the human race great again, I say!

 

[ivwshane]

if I had to guess how many women were participating in this thread, I'd have to say zero, maybe less.

Sadly, they should be in this thread getting their voices heard just like they should be in every conversation where control of their body is of concern.

 

[Majes]

You are being inconsistent. You claim you care about the unborn and believe they deserve a chance while at the same time you are willing to deny such sympathy and a chance for them to reach their potential due to circumstances beyond their control. Apparently murder is ok for you so long as YOU get to define the terms at which it happens. Which is totally fine if its your body you are burdening but it seems pretty fucked up to have someone impose their will/beliefs on someone else, let alone someone else who you have zero ties with.


If I believed sperm was the beginning of life, do you think I have the right to arrest you for murder when you don't impregnate an egg? Why not? Because my belief is ridiculous? What if 150 million people agreed with me?

If you want consistency then there's only one option. You have to let the woman choose. You can't have consistency with abortion bans because ultimately it remains the woman's choice regardless of how we punish it.

If instead, you want to do what's best in each situation then we can have laws to protect the unborn, but there have to be exceptions. There have to be choices made at some point.

The entirety of law is imposing will/beliefs on others. I'm not sure what's so "screwed up" about that.

 

[ivwshane]

If you want consistency then there's only one option. You have to let the woman choose. You can't have consistency with abortion bans because ultimately it remains the woman's choice regardless of how we punish it.

If instead, you want to do what's best in each situation then we can have laws to protect the unborn, but there have to be exceptions. There have to be choices made at some point.

The entirety of law is imposing will/beliefs on others. I'm not sure what's so "screwed up" about that.

For the most part the purpose of laws are to protect people from violating the rights of others.

Either women have the right to control their body or they don't. If you want to prevent abortion then you put in place policies that help to reduce the need for such procedures in the first place (sex ed, access to health care, free contraceptive, etc).

You certainly don't implement policies that compound the problem and make things worse which a ban according would surely do.

 

[Majes]

For the most part the purpose of laws are to protect people from violating the rights of others.

Either women have the right to control their body or they don't. If you want to prevent abortion then you put in place policies that help to reduce the need for such procedures in the first place (sex ed, access to health care, free contraceptive, etc).

You certainly don't implement policies that compound the problem and make things worse which a ban according would surely do.

So there should be no protections for the unborn up until birth then? I mean that's the simplest and most efficient way to set things up... I just happen to think we can do better than that.

 

[HomerJS]

If you want consistency then there's only one option. You have to let the woman choose. You can't have consistency with abortion bans because ultimately it remains the woman's choice regardless of how we punish it.

If instead, you want to do what's best in each situation then we can have laws to protect the unborn, but there have to be exceptions. There have to be choices made at some point.

The entirety of law is imposing will/beliefs on others. I'm not sure what's so "screwed up" about that.

If you want more consistency the federal government must dictate what activities your kids can participate in. After all there are some things more risky then others.

 

[Majes]

If you want more consistency the federal government must dictate what activities your kids can participate in. After all there are some things more risky then others.

I don't want consistency. I want us to make the best choices.

 

[Paladin3]

Women should not have a say regarding an unwanted guest in their bodies, even if it causes emotional and physical damage. Men, however, are entitled to Stand Their Ground and defend their Castles with deadly force against unwanted guests and all they need is the fear of being harmed. Funny how that works.

I find the typical religious social conservative to be a bewildering mess of falsehoods, contradictions and nonsense. I eagerly await the coming political blowback from all this fundie bullshit.

Apologies in advance for digressing off topic. I completely agree with what you are saying and the point you are trying to make. Totally. 100%.

But please don't repeat the lie that castle doctrine only requires FEAR. Anyone can claim they were afraid or even be truly afraid in their own mind, but that fear has to be found REASONABLE in a court of law.

The way you characterize Castle Doctrine laws you make it sound as if you can kill on a whim. It's not true. If reasonable fear of an immediate attack that would cause death or great bodily harm is not enough to justify protecting yourself with deadly force, then what would ever be? Do you have to be dead or only mostly dead before you can fight back against an attacker in your own home? That we ever legally required a homeowner to retreat from an attacker invading their home or they themselves became the bad guy is ridiculous to begin with.

Oh, and women are entitled to stand their ground, too, if it's reasonable. Except within their own uteri if they live in Alabama. Yup, religious social conservatives are a bewildering mess of contradictions.

 

[Paladin3]

There's only one easy answer to this and that is leave the woman in charge of her own body. It's the simplest and most efficient solution legally.

But we know that easiest isn't always the best.

Personally I sympathize more with the unborn and find myself on the pro-life side. I happen to think that an unborn baby deserves a chance to realize its potential regardless of the circumstances or support it may receive. To have this taken away for any reason is an absolute tragedy.

That doesn't mean there aren't other tragedies that can take precedence though. A victim of rape or incest shouldn't be forced to carry to term. They should be educated and encouraged to make their choice before it causes actual pain to the baby. The same goes for a pregnancy that threatens the mother or even a pregnancy that will result in a baby with terrible health issues. Educate the mother or the parents involved and encourage them to make their choice quickly.

This is the best we can can do because in reality no matter what consequences the government imposes the woman still literally has the choice. The government is basically taking awful situations and making them worse when it should be educating and trying to help parents make informed choices.

I think you might actually be pro-choice. You just want potential parents, anyone who fucks, really, to make more responsible choices. I hope we can all agree an abortion is a pretty ugly thing to have to resort to, regardless of now necessary it might be.

I'm pro-choice and, while I dislike the idea of abortion and the trauma for everyone involved, want to see it remain legal and easy to obtain without stigmatizing a woman who resorts to having one. Sex education involving contraception and responsible reproduction are the only reasonable ways to try and lower the instances of abortion. A simple condom negates the necessity of most abortions. But tossing folks in jail for participation in one or forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child is barbaric.

 

[ivwshane]

So there should be no protections for the unborn up until birth then? I mean that's the simplest and most efficient way to set things up... I just happen to think we can do better than that.

The protection of the mother supercedes any protections for the fetus. I prefer to do better for those that are here now.

 

[nakedfrog]

Well, I might agree, but we don't exactly have statistics to prove your hypothesis. They SHOULD be privy to the discussion, and we SHOULD solicit their opinion. I CAN'T have an abortion, being a male, because I can't conceive! Maybe the future holds a surprise for us if they can make men conceive, and the Bible Thumpers will be up in arms again and against transgenders who want to get preggers.

But at least I can argue on the behalf of women that they aren't chattel. I came up from the late '40s after being a fetus in 1946. I was a "little shaver" in the '50s, pounding my meat, squeezing my lizard and banging my baloney in the '60s, "on the hunt" according to the Lynyrd Skynyrd song in the '70s, working my ass off in the '80s, beginning to notice that Willie was tired in the '90s, organizing my porn collection after the millennium, and losing Microsoft Media Center for viewing it in the last year.

Women have the right to do with their bodies what they want. If they want to rip out a few fetus-cells and get their period back, it's their business. If abortion doctors have some religious conscience about ripping out fetus-cells, they shouldn't be in the doctor business, just as Kim Davis shouldn't have been in the marriage license business for giving fudge-packers marriage licenses.

It's a free country or so they say. But the GOP seems to want people to be less free with a lot of things, while enhancing the freedom of assholes like Donald Trump and Bernie Madoff. So F*** down the GOP, F*** down the governor and legislature of Alabama.

I'm freaking tired of the time-wasters worrying about their little consciences and personal beliefs, dominating the political landscape when we have real problems to solve -- from which those time-wasters want to hide by sticking their ostrich heads in the sand.

We'd be better off for trimming such people from the human evolutionary tree. Make the human race great again, I say!

"Fudge-packers" is not the preferred nomenclature, dude.

 

[kage69]

Apologies in advance for digressing off topic. I completely agree with what you are saying and the point you are trying to make. Totally. 100%.

But please don't repeat the lie that castle doctrine only requires FEAR. Anyone can claim they were afraid or even be truly afraid in their own mind, but that fear has to be found REASONABLE in a court of law.

I'm less interested in the cause than I am the result here, for comparisons sake.

I choose the wording due to it's popularity, and in no way meant to infer it's the only reason. "He made me fearful for my life" is a tried and true response in Stand Your Ground areas, but you're right, burglary has also been enough to warrant gun fire. If it's not the 'fear of property being stolen,' what is the motivation for engaging thieves? Probably moot, what with attorneys grooming their clients they way they do.

Oh, and women are entitled to stand their ground, too, if it's reasonable. Except within their own uteri if they live in Alabama. Yup, religious social conservatives are a bewildering mess of contradictions.

Of course they are, just not with their own bodies, exactly. We can debate and quibble about the details and points of Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine by State, but the over all point I was making is in social authoritarian/holy roller states with "pro-life" agendas, the protecting life part is very subjective, to a ridiculous and disenfranchising degree.

GOP is going to get obliterated in 2020. 2018 will look like a weak nut tap by comparison.