The horror of abortion restrictions

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
No one said they were equivalent issues, just that they're similar in terms of the impact on society; it's limited to those involved.

I have no problem with requiring the consent of both the father and mother for an abortion, but aside from the mother and father, who exactly are the "people" who have a right to object to the taking of "a life" on behalf of another?

Under current law the father's rights are considered to be non-existent.

And I can just see the fit that the Democratic Party would throw if it was suggested the father should have them. You would be considered no different than Todd Akin.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Under current law the father's rights are considered to be non-existent.

And I can just see the fit that the Democratic Party would throw if it was suggested the father should have them. You would be considered no different than Todd Akin.

Why should I care what the Democratic party finds offensive?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
I have no problem with requiring the consent of both the father and mother for an abortion, but aside from the mother and father, who exactly are the "people" who have a right to object to the taking of "a life" on behalf of another?

Anyone who objects to the taking of a life.

If I kill you, it doesn't matter if your family is okay with it and nobody speaks up specifically. I'm still being charged with murder.

The matter of whether a fetus counts for this purpose or not is a matter of debate. But speaking simply logically, abortion is not analogous to gay marriage because in the latter, only the two adults making the commitment are involved. Nobody/nothing dies.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Anyone who objects to the taking of a life.

If I kill you, it doesn't matter if your family is okay with it and nobody speaks up specifically. I'm still being charged with murder.

The matter of whether a fetus counts for this purpose or not is a matter of debate. But speaking simply logically, abortion is not analogous to gay marriage because in the latter, only the two adults making the commitment are involved. Nobody/nothing dies.

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.
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
As an aside, I currently live in an apartment. It's about 700 sq feet with 3 bedrooms and my neighbors above are in an identical apartment. They're hardcore Catholic and have 12 children. The mother is in her mid 40's.

At 6 in the morning the kids that are old enough go to school and the rest stay home. When school is over the kids are not allowed to go outside. I've never seen any of them. I can hear them isolated either in their room making one hell of a ruckus or dragging a broom handle or something equivalent back and forth across the living room floor for hours on end. Their family reminds me of the terrible conditions in a cramped zoo. The kids just pace back and forth for hours on end screaming.

It's very sad but every once in a while I can't help but laugh. The day before yesterday the whole family had a bongo party. The noise was unbearable but the sight of it must have been pure comedy gold. I picture 14 people in a hippie drum circle praying to Jesus.

Luckily I don't have to live here for very long.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
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.

I understand that. But society routinely allows those not directly impacted by harm done to an innocent to intercede to prevent that harm.

Whether or not I agree with it, millions of people in this country honestly believe that abortion is wrong because it ends a life. I understand why they want to get involved in preventing that.

In contrast, opposition to gay marriage is pure bigotry.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
I understand that. But society routinely allows those not directly impacted by harm done to an innocent to intercede to prevent that harm.

It shouldn't.

Whether or not I agree with it, millions of people in this country honestly believe that abortion is wrong because it ends a life. I understand why they want to get involved in preventing that.

I understand why they want to, but that doesn't mean they should be able to.
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
I understand that. But society routinely allows those not directly impacted by harm done to an innocent to intercede to prevent that harm.

Whether or not I agree with it, millions of people in this country honestly believe that abortion is wrong because it ends a life. I understand why they want to get involved in preventing that.

In contrast, opposition to gay marriage is pure bigotry.

Millions of people also believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and want to teach creationism. At what point do we tell the stupid people to sit down and shut up?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
For a long time, I was pro life, because I don't believe there is any difference in the moral value of a baby immediately after it is born compared to before. Therefore, unless one believes that infanticide is moral, it would seem that one could not consider the abortion of a fetus immediately before birth as moral. Yes, their is probably a progression of the moral value of the fetus from the time of conception to the time immediately before delivery, but this becomes a fine line to draw.

Then I started to try to determine a moral equivalency to abortion that I could use to compare. I finally came up with what I believe is a pretty reasonable comparison, which actually changed my mind.

Consider a family with a child that needs a kidney in order to survive. Now imagine that the only person with a compatible kidney is the mother. Should it be legal to force the mother to donate the kidney? Thinking about this question, I felt, no, it shouldn't. I think it is morally reprehensible not to donate the kidney, but consider it even more so to force the mother to donate the kidney. Based on this, I also no longer believe that you can force the mother to deliver the child.

Except in this example, the child has other options available to her. The mother's refusal does not by definition involve a death sentence for the child. Kidney donors can be found elsewhere. In the event they are not and the child dies, the mother has committed no legal wrong-doing. Furthermore, the loss of a kidney is considerably weightier than the loss of 9 months and the pain of labor and delivery. Saying I killed my daughter in utero because it would've been a pain in the ass is a lot thinner than saying my daughter died because she needed a kidney I wouldn't give to her.

There is a difference between needing a kidney and needing simply to not be killed.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
Warning people is fine (to a point; nagging turns people off), but what social conservatives want to do is use government and law to prevent people from making choices that they think are wrong, even though those choices have no direct impact on anyone other than the person who is making that choice.

That is what's wrong, and is precisely why they are on the wrong side on things like abortion, gay marriage, and censorship. All of these have no implications for anyone except those who choose to participate.

Don't like abortion? Fine, don't have one.
Don't like gay marriage? Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex.

As far as censorship, why should I not be able to see or hear something because you find it offensive? Why are your kids and your desire to expose them to only certain things in any way my responsibility? You control what your kids watch/hear... and the rest of us shouldn't have to deal with censorship and restrictions on what we watch simply to make your effort to censor what your kids watch/hear easier or automatic. Censorship is like saying I can't eat a steak because a baby can't chew it.

Libertarianism all the way, which includes every individual being responsible for the costs they incur or impose. Anything else is, essentially, just using law and government to nag... which is not what government is for or what government is best at.


:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
You pro-life people just need to learn that a clump of cells is not YET a person. It has the potential to become one if left alone. It has no conscience, no self awareness, no anything. Nothing is formed yet. All you are aborting is the potential of a person, not an actual person. That is why the current laws are set up the way they are. The longer you allow it to go the more formed the person becomes thus making the moral decision much harder to defend. I think the current 24 weeks is fine.

Think in those terms and the whole issue becomes clear.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
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.

A woman's uterus belongs to her. Not you, not me, not the fetus, not the Dad, not the government.

Where does the authority for the government to control a woman's uterus come from ?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
A woman's uterus belongs to her. Not you, not me, not the fetus, not the Dad, not the government.

Where does the authority for the government to control a woman's uterus come from ?

Perhaps that is a question you should be asking yourself since you have no problem controlling a woman's uterus once the fetus reaches a certain gestational age.

Though in my opinion the authority would come from the fact that the government/man is expected to take care of what comes out of her uterus.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Perhaps that is a question you should be asking yourself since you have no problem controlling a woman's uterus once the fetus reaches a certain gestational age.

Though in my opinion the authority would come from the fact that the government/man is expected to take care of what comes out of her uterus.

I guess that's a sensible viewpoint, thinking a child is nothing but a financial burden, if all you can see is a dependent child, and can't see that dependent children become adults, who make things, become doctors, discover things, in other words are the basis of an ongoing society.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I guess that's a sensible viewpoint, thinking a child is nothing but a financial burden, if all you can see is a dependent child, and can't see that dependent children become adults, who make things, become doctors, discover things, in other words are the basis of an ongoing society.

Some how I think that the kind of people who either get abortions (or should be getting thme) are not the kind of people who have children who "become adults, who make things, become doctors, discover things, in other words are the basis of an ongoing society."

It is much more likely that the beget children who become adults who steal things, become criminals, kill people, in other words are the basis of barbarism.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
Some how I think that the kind of people who either get abortions (or should be getting thme) are not the kind of people who have children who "become adults, who make things, become doctors, discover things, in other words are the basis of an ongoing society."

It is much more likely that the beget children who become adults who steal things, become criminals, kill people, in other words are the basis of barbarism.

You are a sad little man. May your god smote you.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Millions of people also believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and want to teach creationism. At what point do we tell the stupid people to sit down and shut up?

Truly great thinkers are able to understand and acknowledge opposing views, even if they do not agree.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
You pro-life people just need to learn that a clump of cells is not YET a person. It has the potential to become one if left alone. It has no conscience, no self awareness, no anything. Nothing is formed yet. All you are aborting is the potential of a person, not an actual person. That is why the current laws are set up the way they are. The longer you allow it to go the more formed the person becomes thus making the moral decision much harder to defend. I think the current 24 weeks is fine.

Think in those terms and the whole issue becomes clear.

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

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
You pro-life people just need to learn that a clump of cells is not YET a person. It has the potential to become one if left alone. It has no conscience, no self awareness, no anything. Nothing is formed yet. All you are aborting is the potential of a person, not an actual person. That is why the current laws are set up the way they are. The longer you allow it to go the more formed the person becomes thus making the moral decision much harder to defend. I think the current 24 weeks is fine.

Think in those terms and the whole issue becomes clear.

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.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
Except in this example, the child has other options available to her. The mother's refusal does not by definition involve a death sentence for the child. Kidney donors can be found elsewhere. In the event they are not and the child dies, the mother has committed no legal wrong-doing. Furthermore, the loss of a kidney is considerably weightier than the loss of 9 months and the pain of labor and delivery. Saying I killed my daughter in utero because it would've been a pain in the ass is a lot thinner than saying my daughter died because she needed a kidney I wouldn't give to her.

There is a difference between needing a kidney and needing simply to not be killed.

You didn't read close enough. It is a fictional hypothetical situation where the mother is the only potential donor (no one else is a match). Also, I take it you have no children? Delivering a baby is something that has a permanent impact on the woman's body. It isn't just 9 months and the pain of labor and delivery. I agree, it isn't a perfect analogy, but it is the closest that I can come up with that I can personally relate to.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
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.

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.

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.