The horror of abortion restrictions

[TerryMathews]

You are just a clump of cells. People try to use language to diminish the stance of others, when in the end, they are just words. Tell a potential mother that just miscarried that she just lost a clump of cells. See how that goes over. The science has very little to do with this debate. From the POV you're trying to push, it should be morally less wrong to kill a mentally disabled person. The only thing that matters is the moral value people assign a fetus at various points of progression. Personally, I agree, that immediately after conception, the moral value is essentially equivalent to the separate sperm and egg, that is to say, none at all really. As it develops, it becomes much less clear. There is nothing simple about this topic.

This. People, on both sides, try to play this off as a simple issue.

Read the transcript of Roe v. Wade. People much smarter than the people in this thread spent A LOT of time debating this.

To claim that a pro-life argument is a sign of ignorance, is ridiculous on its face. The court took it, and it's pro-choice counterpart very seriously.

 

[zsdersw]

Nor does a person owning and beating their slaves. Slavery hinged upon the definition of whether a black person had any legal rights, and a couple hundred years ago, no, they didn't. Slave owners should have just told everyone to mind their own business, right. It didn't affect them.
Don't like abortion? Fine, don't have one.
Don't like gay marriage? Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex.
Don'y like slavery? Fine, don't own any.

Mind your own damn business.

Slavery was an obvious example of why the constitution has so often been amended. Abortion is not.

Note - one of these is not like the other, as only one of these doesn't involve one persons actions impacting the rights of another.

Note - all of these things are like the other in the way I mentioned earlier.

 

[mect]

Slavery was an obvious example of why the constitution has so often been amended. Abortion is not.



Note - all of these things are like the other in the way I mentioned earlier.

The only difference is the moral value assigned to a black person (or any other person) compared to a fetus. In both cases you have (or had) individuals that are saying that another individual does not deserve to be legally recognized. In the case of slavery, you feel that blacks deserve legal recognition, so you are in favor of amending the constitution. In the case of abortion, you don't believe a fetus deserves legal recognition, so you are opposed. From my own personal standpoint, the two things that makes abortion a far trickier topic than slavery are 1) I think the moral value of the fetus is changing over time whereas for slavery the moral value a black person is static and 2) For slavery, the slave owner didn't have to have his freedoms violated in order to enable the freedom of the slave.

That being said, the only way you can argue that a woman getting an abortion is no one else's business is if you argue that the fetus deserves no moral rights, at any point of development. I find that argument reprehensible. I don't see why the moral value of a fetus would change just because it crosses from one side of the vagina to the other. But then, I guess there are several in this thread that have no issue with infanticide.

 

[soulcougher73]

Do you disagree with the radical pro-choicers who think 8.9 months is within a womans right to choose?

Yes i disagree with that stance.

 

[soulcougher73]

You are just a clump of cells. People try to use language to diminish the stance of others, when in the end, they are just words. Tell a potential mother that just miscarried that she just lost a clump of cells. See how that goes over. The science has very little to do with this debate. From the POV you're trying to push, it should be morally less wrong to kill a mentally disabled person. The only thing that matters is the moral value people assign a fetus at various points of progression. Personally, I agree, that immediately after conception, the moral value is essentially equivalent to the separate sperm and egg, that is to say, none at all really. As it develops, it becomes much less clear. There is nothing simple about this topic.

I am a form of a person of a clump of cells. I took form. I look like a person now. The more you allow the clump of cells to form and become human form the harder this whole topic becomes. I believe in the choice to choose up to a point. But at least its a choice, unlike the ones who want to get rid of all choice regadless.

 

[nehalem256]

I am a form of a person of a clump of cells. I took form. I look like a person now. The more you allow the clump of cells to form and become human form the harder this whole topic becomes. I believe in the choice to choose up to a point. But at least its a choice, unlike the ones who want to get rid of all choice regadless.

So you believe at a certain period of time a woman's body stops being hers.

Abstinence is a choice.

 

[soulcougher73]

So you believe at a certain period of time a woman's body stops being hers.

Abstinence is a choice.

No i believe at a certain point the baby becomes more than a clump of cells and is now entitled to gestate unhindered outside of medically life threating issues.

So is getting an abortion. Your point?

 

[nehalem256]

No i believe at a certain point the baby becomes more than a clump of cells and is now entitled to gestate unhindered outside of medically life threating issues.

And this belief differs from pro-lifers in absolutely no way. You simply differ in when it become more than a clump of cells.

So is getting an abortion. Your point?

That they do have a choice.

 

[soulcougher73]

And this belief differs from pro-lifers in absolutely no way. You simply differ in when it become more than a clump of cells.

Right and one allows a choice and one does not. Im sorry. I like choices.

 

[nehalem256]

Right and one allows a choice and one does not. Im sorry. I like choices.

They both allow choices simply at separate times.

And you only seem to think that this extra choice should be allowed for women.

And don't bother bring up any "its her body" crap. Since you just conceded you are fine with telling women what to do with their body.

 

[momeNt]

No i believe at a certain point the baby becomes more than a clump of cells and is now entitled to gestate unhindered outside of medically life threating issues.

So is getting an abortion. Your point?

This is why direct mutilations of the fetus should be barred, and instead peaceful removal of the fetus. Not killing, simply evicting it from your body like an unwelcome guest. You can kick out a house guest at a party, you don't have to chop them into pieces in order to do so. Whether or not they die outside of your care isn't really the state's concern, or at least it shouldn't be.

 

[soulcougher73]

They both allow choices simply at separate times.

And you only seem to think that this extra choice should be allowed for women.

And don't bother bring up any "its her body" crap. Since you just conceded you are fine with telling women what to do with their body.

Mine offers more choices than your plan. So mine is superior

I believe men should have a choice as well. I think if the fathers wants the baby and the mother doesnt then the mother should have to carry it (outside of medical issues on her life). She writes off custody to him and they go their merry ways. We dont have that now but im for it.

But the reverse holds true as well IMO. If the father wants an abortion and the mother doesnt, then she takes all custody and they go their merry ways.

Your overall arguments are weak though. I dont limit choices, only time frames. You eliminate both.

 

[soulcougher73]

This is why direct mutilations of the fetus should be barred, and instead peaceful removal of the fetus. Not killing, simply evicting it from your body like an unwelcome guest. You can kick out a house guest at a party, you don't have to chop them into pieces in order to do so. Whether or not they die outside of your care isn't really the state's concern, or at least it shouldn't be.

You are confusing a clump of cells with no form to a living person. Apples and oranges.

 

[momeNt]

You are confusing a clump of cells with no form to a living person. Apples and oranges.

I'm trying to remain logically consistent and avoid arbitrary distinctions on a timeline from conception to birth. I feel that evictionism is the only solution that remains logically consistent and protects the woman's right to self and her freedom to evict an unwanted guest, be it a clump of cells, a nearly full term fetus, or a child. I realize its an unpopular position to have, and I would never abandon my child. But I feel that for the state to assert power over your life to force you to care for your children under penalty of your loss of liberty is wrong. The end may be noble, but the means is immoral.

 

[Baasha]

This is simply tragic. Poor Savita and her family.

These zombie worshiping untouchables should be prosecuted and jailed for life for causing the death of an innocent woman.

Must be those "values" we hear about so often!

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm trying to remain logically consistent and avoid arbitrary distinctions on a timeline from conception to birth. I feel that evictionism is the only solution that remains logically consistent and protects the woman's right to self and her freedom to evict an unwanted guest, be it a clump of cells, a nearly full term fetus, or a child. I realize its an unpopular position to have, and I would never abandon my child. But I feel that for the state to assert power over your life to force you to care for your children under penalty of your loss of liberty is wrong. The end may be noble, but the means is immoral.

And who pays for the evicted fetus and brings it to full term fetus and then takes care of it as a child?

 

[Retro Rob]

I was just thinking, we all need to shut up arguing (not here on this forum but in general) about rights and who is trying to tell who what to do with what.

Be glad you have rights.

Try moving to China.

Man, we really don't know how good we've got it here.

 

[Blackjack200]

I was just thinking, we all need to shut up arguing (not here on this forum but in general) about rights and who is trying to tell who what to do with what.

Be glad you have rights.

Try moving to China.

Man, we really don't know how good we've got it here.

Damn straight. Make sure you tell Savita.

...oh, wait.

 

[soulcougher73]

Damn straight. Make sure you tell Savita.

...oh, wait.

I shouldnt laugh at that, but i did...

 

[Munky]

If by "conservatives" you mean hardcore religious pro-life zealots, then you might wanna reconsider your definition of "conservative." Although that would inconvenience you with having to come up with a less catchy and baiting title.

But judging by the ignorance level of your typical hardcore liberal, you probably really think that conservatism has anything to do with strict religious dogma.

 

[DCal430]

SO basically...what you are saying here is that you are making up scenarios that you have NO proof of actually taking place..

Ya, that's EXACTLY what you are saying.

You also have not submitted any proof of these "laws" either.

There is no legal way to get such proof, you are the one who claims there are laws against such abortions in all of the states so you need to post poof not me.

You are very ignorant if you think it doesn't happen. Nothing prevents it and no laws restrict it.

 

[TerryMathews]

There is no legal way to get such proof, you are the one who claims there are laws against such abortions in all of the states so you need to post poof not me.

You are very ignorant if you think it doesn't happen. Nothing prevents it and no laws restrict it.

I read the other night that clinics skirt the late term prohibitions by injecting the babys heart with concentrated sodium to kill it prior to the actual abortion.

It's not murder, but yet we've got to give it a lethal injection "just in case." Amirite?

 

[Retro Rob]

It's a matter of denying someone their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In this case, it's the right to life. Actions that do that are punishable.

Abortion hinges upon the definition of when life begins and when the rights inherent to life as defined in our constitution kick in.

But it remains true that a woman aborting her pregnancy has no direct impact on a total stranger.

Hmmm, this is interesting.

Like some brought out earlier, I think some people really think that, as you say, the right to life is in clear violation. It has a bearing on a total stranger because they feel that no one wants to stand up for the rights of the unborn, and it really bothers me that an unbor child is regarded as nothing more than a "clump of cells".

I don't have to carry a child, but my wife and mother tells me that when a woman becomes pregnant even well before the child is born, that bond is special and unbreakable. When a woman intentionally aborts it, is the most callus and inhumane thing someone can do. I think we would do better as a society and curb unwanted pregnancies and needless abortions by standing up and being a tad bit more responsible and stop trying to cut moral corners.

I understand that not all adults are responsible, but does that mean we should stop encouraging it? Not all humans abide by the laws, so should we take police off the street because some refuse to abide by laws?

 

[soulcougher73]

I don't have to carry a child, but my wife and mother tells me that when a woman becomes pregnant even well before the child is born, that bond is special and unbreakable. When a woman intentionally aborts it, is the most callus and inhumane thing someone can do. I think we would do better as a society and curb unwanted pregnancies and needless abortions by standing up and being a tad bit more responsible and stop trying to cut moral corners.

If the bond is so special and unbreakable than why are women getting abortions at all? Sounds like your moral logic doesnt apply to everyone.

 

[TerryMathews]

If the bond is so special and unbreakable than why are women getting abortions at all? Sounds like your moral logic doesnt apply to everyone.

Why does anyone murder?