Mothers day and abortion

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Would the founding fathers allow abortion or consider it an utterly repulsive act against all things that are holy?

Careful who you call stupid alien head.

They apparently didn't care.

"UNTIL the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). Colonial home medical guides gave recipes for "bringing on the menses" with herbs that could be grown in one's garden or easily found in the woods. By the mid eighteenth century commercial preparations were so widely available that they had inspired their own euphemism ("taking the trade"). Unfortunately, these drugs were often fatal. The first statutes regulating abortion, passed in the 1820s and 1830s, were actually poison-control laws: the sale of commercial abortifacients was banned, but abortion per se was not. The laws made little difference. By the 1840s the abortion business -- including the sale of illegal drugs, which were widely advertised in the popular press -- was booming. The most famous practitioner, Madame Restell, openly provided abortion services for thirty-five years, with offices in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia and traveling salespeople touting her "Female Monthly Pills."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/05/abortion-in-american-history/376851/
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Would the founding fathers allow abortion or consider it an utterly repulsive act against all things that are holy?

Careful who you call stupid alien head.
Abortion was legal under English law until the first 'quickening' (the first fetal kicking, usually about 4 months). The Founding Fathers did nothing to change that law and abortion remained legal (and common) in the US until about 1900.
There's no mention of abortion in the Bible but we know that it has been practiced since antiquity.
Under doctrine established by Thomas Aquinas in the 1300s, the Catholic Church permitted abortion until the 80th day of pregnancy until Pope Pius IX decreed that life begins at conception in 1869.
Want me to go on here?
I haven't even gotten started on John Locke and labor theory of property, which posits that all private property ownership derives from individual sovereignty, or how all of the Founding Fathers were huge fans of Locke.

Abortion is a complex issue. While the practice is IMO morally distasteful, and should be avoided as much as possible, to assert that the state's interest in having the fetus brought to term outweighs a woman's inherent right to self-ownership is even more repugnant. To support stripping these women of their individual sovereignty without due process or just compensation is to support slavery, and fully incompatible with any libertarian or capitalist philosophy.
 
Last edited:

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
Abortion was legal under English law until the first 'quickening' (the first fetal kicking, usually about 4 months). The Founding Fathers did nothing to change that law and abortion remained legal in the US until about 1900.
There's no mention of abortion in the Bible but we know that it has been practiced since antiquity.
Under doctrine established by Thomas Aquinas in the 1300s, the Catholic Church permitted abortion until the 80th day of pregnancy until Pope Pius IX decreed that life begins at conception in 1869.
Want me to go on here?
I haven't even gotten started on John Locke and labor theory of property, which posits that all private property ownership derives from individual sovereignty, or how all of the Founding Fathers were huge fans of Locke.

Abortion is a complex issue. While the practice is morally distasteful, and should be avoided as much as possible, to assert that the state's interest in having the fetus brought to term outweighs a woman's inherent right to self-ownership is even more repugnant. To support stripping these women of their individual sovereignty without due process or just compensation is to support slavery, and fully incompatible with any libertarian or capitalist philosophy.


How is it that the woman is considered the slave when it is the baby that is really the slave, i.e self-ownership. Does the baby not have a right to life? What ever happened to life, liberty and the pursuit to happiness? Surly the life of a baby is covered by this?

James Wilson’s “Lectures on Law,” given at what eventually was to become the University of Pennsylvania, clearly affirm that the right to life encompasses the unborn. Wilson was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration and the Constitution, and was a Supreme Court justice from 1789 to 1798. Recognized as “the most learned and profound legal scholar of his generation,” Wilson’s lectures were attended by President George Washington, Vice President John Adams, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and a “galaxy of other republican worthies.” For this reason, as constitutional scholar Walter Berns states, “Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally.” So what do the Founders say about the right to life?
Wilson clearly answers this question: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”


Wilson, in agreement with the limited medical jurisprudence of his time, assumed that life begins with the “quickening" of the infant in his mother’s womb. As taught by Aristotle, the quickening was the point at which the fetus was infused with a human, rational soul. John Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, first printed in 1839, defines the quickening as follows: “The motion of the foetus, when felt by the mother, is called quickening, and the mother is then said to be quick with child. This happens at different periods of pregnancy in different women, and in different circumstances, but most usually about the fifteenth or sixteenth week after conception….”
One of the sources of both Wilson’s and Bouvier’s opinion is William Blackstone’s widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769). Blackstone’s discussion of the quickening observes: “Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb… this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor…"
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Probably most of them do.

Probably most of them don't since pro-lifers are mostly imbeciles that belive in talking snakes and a young earth, and they are incapable of logical construction. Good company you keep.

Wanting to reduce abortions doesn't mean you support every potential method.

And I never claimed it did. You made the ridiculous claim that it was inconsistent to want to reverse global warming yet oppose nuclear power, which is what I was responding to.

I was at the store last night and saw a baby in the shopping cart as cute as a button smiling away watching her mom take groceries off the shelf. And I thought about how innocent she was not knowing the evil that exists in the world.

Babies are cute, therefore abortion is wrong.

But I'm sure I'm wasting my time as no one here reads the Bible or believes. I'm not an ultra Christian, I'm a spiritual, baptized protestant Lutheran. And by now you should know me a staunch Conservative.

I'm sure you are too. Go away.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,355
32,982
136
How is it that the woman is considered the slave when it is the baby that is really the slave, i.e self-ownership. Does the baby not have a right to life? What ever happened to life, liberty and the pursuit to happiness? Surly the life of a baby is covered by this?

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html

A hospital you are in is burning down and you hear a crying infant on your way to the exit. You also know there is a container in a room not far from you that has 1000 embryos in it. You only have time to grab either the infant or the container, but not both, before escaping. Which one do you choose to save and why?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
How is it that the woman is considered the slave when it is the baby that is really the slave, i.e self-ownership. Does the baby not have a right to life? What ever happened to life, liberty and the pursuit to happiness? Surly the life of a baby is covered by this?

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html
From that 'progressive' Ayn Rand:
Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.

And thanks for agreeing with me that classical law forbade abortion only after the quickening, which usually occurs in the 2nd trimester.
 
Last edited:

tynopik

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2004
5,245
500
126
Probably most of them don't since pro-lifers are mostly imbeciles that belive in talking snakes and a young earth, and they are incapable of logical construction. Good company you keep.

I'm not the one making wild ad-hominem attacks.


And I never claimed it did. You made the ridiculous claim that it was inconsistent to want to reverse global warming yet oppose nuclear power, which is what I was responding to.

Please slow down and re-read what I wrote, it was in fact the exact opposite of what you just claimed. I said it was NOT inconsistent to want to reverse global warming yet oppose nuclear power. Just like it's not inconsistent to oppose abortion and be against certain forms of sex education.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,958
55,347
136
Probably most of them do.

So your argument is that large numbers of people who oppose abortion but are okay with it being legal in cases of rape or incest are hiding their true views in the pursuit of a larger goal.

I have seen exactly zero evidence that anything like that is actually the case. What are you basing this on?
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Would the founding fathers allow abortion or consider it an utterly repulsive act against all things that are holy?

Careful who you call stupid alien head.

They were slave owners, so maybe asking them moral questions isn't a great idea. You people and your silly little cults thinking you can tell others what to do, how delightful.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I think abortion is just a horrible form of selfishness and greed. It is kind of hateful to bring this up on mothers day.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
I've always found the 'rape and incest' exception to be very interesting, as it completely exposes the real reason conservatives oppose abortion.

If you genuinely believe abortion to be murder, a rape and/or incest exception makes absolutely no sense. Why would murdering your innocent child suddenly be okay just because another person committed a crime against you? That's insane.

It always comes down to the case of rape not being the woman's "fault". And that right there gives the game away. It's about punishing women for being promiscuous and not living up to their version of sexual morality. They don't give a shit about the embryo.

The motive for taking a life makes the difference between whether or not that constitutes murder.
 
Last edited:

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
I bet if a baby could talk to his/her mom through the umbilical cord, I'm sure they would say, "mommy, please don't kill me."

Yeah and I bet if grains could talk they would say "farmer, please don't harvest me."

Let's keep talking about what things would do if they were completely different things.

I think abortion is just a horrible form of selfishness and greed. It is kind of hateful to bring this up on mothers day.

How is it any more selfish and greedy than contraception? What really makes it different? Or do you have a problem with that too?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Yeah and I bet if grains could talk they would say "farmer, please don't harvest me."

Let's keep talking about what things would do if they were completely different things.



How is it any more selfish and greedy than contraception? What really makes it different? Or do you have a problem with that too?

Or if infants could talk, they'd say, "Mommy please don't kill me." Or if toddlers who are yet to the point of speech could talk...or adults who are brain damaged and unable to speak...
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
The motive for taking a life makes the difference between whether or not that constitutes murder.

So think of abortion as self-defense. If a woman is allowed to kill people who enter her unwillingly (rape), it's not a stretch to say that a fetus she did not consent to has no right to expect to take up residency inside her for nine months. And consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy. Not every act of sex needs to result in a child, especially in a world where there is an increasing struggle for resources. Maybe we should focus on ways we can limit over-population, like preventing pregnancies in people who have no interest in raising a child? Seems like that's better for literally everyone on the planet. But opponents of abortion have never opposed it on logical grounds; it's an emotional issue. This is just the latest ride on the merry-go-round, where one side argues logic and one side argues emotion and there will NEVER be consensus because we're approaching the argument from completely different rationales. So, fuck it. Wheeeeee!
 

tynopik

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2004
5,245
500
126
Maybe we should focus on ways we can limit over-population, like preventing pregnancies in people who have no interest in raising a child? Seems like that's better for literally everyone on the planet.

Preventing or ending?


But opponents of abortion have never opposed it on logical grounds; it's an emotional issue. This is just the latest ride on the merry-go-round, where one side argues logic and one side argues emotion and there will NEVER be consensus because we're approaching the argument from completely different rationales. So, fuck it. Wheeeeee!

So saying you oppose killing the innocent is an appeal to emotion?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
So think of abortion as self-defense. If a woman is allowed to kill people who enter her unwillingly (rape), it's not a stretch to say that a fetus she did not consent to has no right to expect to take up residency inside her for nine months.

Agreed.

And consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy. Not every act of sex needs to result in a child, especially in a world where there is an increasing struggle for resources.

Eating nothing but junk food is probably not consent to gaining weight either, but it's a possible consequence that you ignore at your peril.

Maybe we should focus on ways we can limit over-population, like preventing pregnancies in people who have no interest in raising a child? Seems like that's better for literally everyone on the planet.

Yeah, except for those people who we decide to kill for the "greater good."

It's funny that liberals level the accusation against pro-lifers that they don't really care about the baby. I could make an equally silly accusation and say that until liberals kill themselves, they don't really believe that overpopulation is a problem.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Eating nothing but junk food is probably not consent to gaining weight either, but it's a possible consequence that you ignore at your peril.

Thanks for reminding us again that this is about punishing women for having sex.

It's funny that liberals level the accusation against pro-lifers that they don't really care about the baby. I could make an equally silly accusation and say that until liberals kill themselves, they don't really believe that overpopulation is a problem.

Wow, checkmate.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,515
17,019
136
I love how it's always men that have arguments about what women are allowed to do with their bodies. Their arguments are never consistent and they are never logical. But that's probably just a basic human trait.
 

tynopik

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2004
5,245
500
126
I love how it's always men that have arguments about what women are allowed to do with their bodies.

Are you saying there are no women in the pro-life movement?

If you're talking about on anandtech, well yes, the demographic here is male heavy, so it's going to be the case whatever the subject.

Their arguments are never consistent and they are never logical. But that's probably just a basic human trait.

So a 7-month preemie is a full human being but 9-month fetus is just a lump of tissue, how is that logical?
 
Last edited: