╌>

Is there a logical or rational argument against abortion?

  
By:  Gordy327  •  last year  •  419 comments


Is there a logical or rational argument against abortion?
"Reproductive freedom is critical to a whole range of issues. If we can’t take charge of this most personal aspect of our lives, we can’t take care of anything. It should not be seen as a privilege or as a benefit, but a fundamental human right." --- Faye Wattleton

Leave a comment to auto-join group Religious and not News Chat

Religious and not News Chat

When Roe v. Wade was decided back in 1973, abortion was allowed in all states while both sides of the abortion debate continued to battle it out. Abortion rights opponents wanted to restrict or even prohibit abortion with few, if any, exceptions while abortion rights advocates wanted to maintain a woman's right to choose. Since the Dobbs decision, many states have significantly restricted abortion and even included legal penalties for those who perform abortion. Some state laws like those in  Florida  or  Oklahoma  result in women's health being threatened or their lives otherwise being severely disrupted. As the Dobbs decision is fairly recent, I think we are likely seeing the beginning of a trend of disruption against women's health or life. I have previously argued ( here , h ere , and here ) why abortion rights should be preserved and allowed. But I have not yet heard any logical or rational argument why abortion should be restricted or prohibited, especially before viability. Most arguments against abortion involve ignorance, misinformation, and/or emotional rhetoric and appeals or personal bias. So without resorting to emotion, personal bias, or misinformation, can anyone make a logical and rational argument against abortion?


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1  author  Gordy327    last year

Thoughts?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1  cjcold  replied to  Gordy327 @1    last year

To my knowledge I have made 4 women pregnant in my life. 

Two of them had abortions without even telling me until after the fact.

One wanted me to go with her and hold her hand while she had it done.

One carried it to term and wanted to spend the rest of her life with me.

I was not in love with any of them and had no thoughts of marriage.

Am still single and mostly celibate these days. Relationships scare me.

 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.1  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @1.1    last year

I'm pretty sure all 3 of my kids are mine...

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @1.1.1    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.1.3  afrayedknot  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.2    last year

An unbelievable comment that has no place here. Grow up. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.3    last year

dammit, I missed it...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    last year

Do you have an argument to make or are you just trolling?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1    last year

thumping...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @2.1.1    last year

Same difference. Still neither logical nor rational.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.2    last year

I wish thumpers would realize that about twice as many people are offended by the unwanted imposition of their religious dogma as they are by the secular stuff that turns some of them to violence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @2.1.3    last year

I doubt they care. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.4    last year

they still think god is on their side and the only ones that are forgiven.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.6  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @2.1.5    last year
they still think god is on their side and the only ones that are forgiven.

He is and they are. Enough said. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1.7  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.6    last year

If abortion is a sin, let God deal with it if he ever holds a judgement day, until then let women have freewill

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.8  devangelical  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.6    last year

wrong again...

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.9  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @2.1.8    last year

NOPE! I am absolutely 100% correct. You however could not be more wrong. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.10  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.6    last year

That's nice. Prove it!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.11  devangelical  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.7    last year

what does it say about xtians that always feel the need to intercede for their omnipotent god?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1.12  charger 383  replied to  devangelical @2.1.11    last year

maybe he will show himself one day

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.13  author  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.12    last year

I'm not holding my breath.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.14  devangelical  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.12    last year

maybe he's the owner of an intergalactic meat packing plant and earth is his feedlot.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.15  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.10    last year

Proved God is not on their side and prove they are not forgiven.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.15    last year

Prove God exists.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.17  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @2.1.11    last year

I don't know what it says. And what is a "xtian"?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.18  George  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.17    last year

Xitan is intolerant bigot for Christian

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.19  devangelical  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.17    last year
And what is a "xtian"?

those people that get dressed up every sunday morning, drive themselves to that building with the big cross down on the corner, park the car and go inside, sing songs, hold hands and pray. while listening to some jag-off preach about how shitty america is because of the godless lefty's that love the immigrants, LGBTQ people, and commie socialism. they willingly toss their cash whenever the basket is passed. then they drive for brunch and talk about how they believe that trump is the hand of god on earth. those are xtians, not to be confused with real christians. any more questions?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.20  devangelical  replied to  George @2.1.18    last year

LOL

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.21  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.16    last year

I don't need to. I believe He does and have faith that I am right. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.21    last year

So, when you said you'd "proven" whose side he was on, that was basically bullshit?  I mean, you do get that if you can't prove God even exists, you certainly haven't proven whose side he's on, right?  Do you see how ridiculous it is to make such a statement?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.22    last year

Yeah the cliche (and absurd) ... I believe I am right therefore I am 100% right.  

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.24  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.22    last year

First I never said proven and it is not a ridiculous statement. I need no proof God exists or that He is in the side that respects and cherishes innocent human life from the time of conception. I am very comfortable in my beliefs. I sincerely doubt you can say the same. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.25  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.22    last year

Can you conclusively prove that God does not exist? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.26  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.23    last year
I believe I am right therefore I am 100% right.  

For me that is a true statement and I am confident in my belief and need no further proof. It is you that seem to be on the shaky ground of disbelief. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.27  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.25    last year

It is impossible to "prove" a negative...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.28  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.24    last year
First I never said proven

That is not true.  These are your words.  Do you not remember what YOU typed?

Proved God is not on their side and prove they are not forgiven.

And any intelligent person can see that it's ridiculous to claim to have proven which side God is on when you can't even prove God exists.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.29  sandy-2021492  replied to  JBB @2.1.27    last year

This has been explained over and over.  Some folks either will not or cannot grasp the concept.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.30  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.29    last year

... and they wonder why organized religion is in a cultural nosedive.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.1.31  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.25    last year

There is a magic cheeseburger buried 3.5’ deep somewhere on the moon that will explain everything about the origins of our existence.  Prove me wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.26    last year

You constantly make claims about me and seem to never be correct.   I suspect it is a result of operating in terms of (simplistic) stereotypes rather than paying attention to details and engaging in objective (aka logical) analysis.

I am on no shaky ground by not being convinced a god exists.   I do not deny the possibility of a god;  I simply am not (yet) persuaded by the evidence (and the profound lack thereof) that a god exists.

You, in contrast, admit that you are the one on shaky ground as you simply believe without evidence.   One can believe anything, that does not in any way make it true.   The epitome of 'shaky ground'.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.29    last year

... will not ...

(stubbornly)

IMO

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.25    last year
Can you conclusively prove that God does not exist? 

Did Sandy ever even suggest that no god exists?   

Looks like you pulled that from a stereotype instead of reading what she wrote.

Asking you to prove your claim that God (as you define it) exists does not mean that she made a claim that no god exists.   This is basic logic.   Wait until she claims that no god exists before asking for proof.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.35  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.15    last year

You affirmed the claim God is on their side. So the burden of proof is on you. Enough said!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.36  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.24    last year

Beliefs do not equal fact! 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.37  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.29    last year

Some prefer willful ignorance and keeping their head buried in the sand.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.38  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.1.19    last year

I call them phonier than thou small c 'christians'

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.39  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.28    last year

So where in that quote is the word proven. I seem to have missed it. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.40  arkpdx  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.31    last year

There maybe. I personally don't care what you believe. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.41  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.35    last year

That is because God is on their side. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.42  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.36    last year

I could say the same to you. Just because one says there is no God does not make it fact. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.42    last year

Show me where Gordy stated that there is no god.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.1.44  afrayedknot  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.41    last year

“…because God is on their side.”

If a god is left to pick a side, that is not a god but a subject, excuse, or an argument of a demagogue. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.45  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.39    last year

You DID learn about synonyms at some point, didn't you?  You know that "proved" and "proven" could be used interchangeably in your unsupported and ridiculous claim, with no change in meaning, right?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.46  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.41    last year

That's nice. Prove it!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.47  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.39    last year

The obtuseness game does not benefit you.

Let's be clear.

You believe in God (as you define God ... "your God").

You have no proof that your God exists (and likely no persuasive evidence either).

But because you believe in your God you consider yourself to be 100% correct in holding that your God exists.

Others do not believe your God exists.   But that lack of belief is simply the result of not being convinced that your God exists.   Lack of evidence is key here.

But not being persuaded your God exists does not mean that the individual is making a certain claim that your God does NOT exist.   It simply means that they do not share your belief.

Now, if you ever claim that your God exists (as certain truth) then you bear the burden of proof.   If you simply claim that you believe your God exists, then that is simply your personal belief (no burden of proof).

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.48  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.42    last year

Who is saying "there is no god?" There is simply no evidence for a god. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.49  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @2.1.14    last year
intergalactic meat packing plant

Wrote a sci-fi novel along those lines once. 

Sorry, can't divulge the title. Won't out myself.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.1.50  Snuffy  replied to  cjcold @2.1.49    last year
intergalactic meat packing plant
Wrote a sci-fi novel along those lines once. 

When ever I see such a line I immediately think back to that wonderful Twilight Zone episode....

256

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.51  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.1.1    last year

thrumping/throlling

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.52  author  Gordy327  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.50    last year

Gotta love the classics.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.53  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.2    last year

don't you hate it when your comments vanish...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.54  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.52    last year

I'd like to see some bible thumpers being fed to some aliens. they're probably considered the equivalent to "grass fed" in comparison to the rest of us heathens.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.55  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @2.1.54    last year

some film maker really needs to cash in on all the anti-religion sentiment in this country.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.56  author  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @2.1.54    last year

Maybe they would be considered "organic?" 🤔 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.57  author  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @2.1.53    last year

Yes, yes I do.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2    last year

Taunting is definitely a CoC violation.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.1    last year

crusader mentality.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    last year

I think there is a logical argument to make against abortion (protection of "life"), but it is superseded by a woman's right to control her own body. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year
but it is superseded by a woman's right to control her own body. 

Exactly.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3.2  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year

There may be some logic to the argument against abortion, but it is often made by people who are emotionally overwrought, employ false narratives and, in some instances, condone violence against abortion providers, which makes their argument for "life" rather specious.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @3.2    last year
but it is often made by people who are emotionally overwrought, employ false narratives and, in some instances, condone violence against abortion providers, which makes their argument for "life" rather specious.

I have regularly noticed the same trend or style of argument. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.1    last year

I believe that the choice of whether or not to have an abortion is solely the woman's choice and no one else's business, but I can see that some who oppose abortion may have a certain logic to their argument against it within the context of their belief system.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @3.2.2    last year
I believe that the choice of whether or not to have an abortion is solely the woman's choice and no one else's business,

As do I.

but I can see that some who oppose abortion may have a certain logic to their argument against it within the context of their belief system.

I fail to see it. Belief itself is subjective and not shared by everyone. I prefer more objectivity myself. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.3    last year

You, and I, may not agree with them, but the logic for their position is as briefly mentioned by John in his comment above.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4  charger 383    last year

I do not see any logical or rational reason to prohibit abortion

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @4    last year

Neither do I. Hence, the inquiry of the article.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.2  Snuffy  replied to  charger 383 @4    last year

I agree.  I don't like abortion, so as a conservative that means I won't get an abortion for myself.

But as 70% of the voting public from the last poll I saw does want to see abortion back, I wish that Congress would put the religious arguments behind them (we are supposed to be a secular country) and come up with a compromise bill that both sides could agree to.  Nobody would get everything they want but there would be enough give and take to leave most everybody happy I think.  

But outside of the religious argument, I cannot think of any logical or rational reason to prohibit it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Snuffy @4.2    last year
I wish that Congress would put the religious arguments behind them (we are supposed to be a secular country) and come up with a compromise bill that both sides could agree to. 

I have said before that viability was a reasonable compromise. 

But outside of the religious argument, I cannot think of any logical or rational reason to prohibit it.

I cannot think of one either and the religious argument should be irrelevant in regards to our secular laws.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Snuffy @4.2    last year
come up with a compromise bill that both sides could agree to

we had one for 50 years, but that wasn't good enough for the self righteous...

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.2.3  Snuffy  replied to  devangelical @4.2.2    last year
come up with a compromise bill that both sides could agree to
we had one for 50 years, but that wasn't good enough for the self righteous...

No.  We had a Supreme Court action that made abortion legal but we never had a bill come out of Congress to allow abortion.  There have been several attempts thru the years to pass a bill to outlaw abortion at the federal level but the only one that was passed and signed into law was immediately challenged by The Center for Reproductive Rights and the lawsuit blocked enforcement of the federal law.

Even the Supreme Court action was not agreed with fully,  even RBG stated it was a bad decision.

Rather than the return to the 60's with a patchwork of laws around abortion I would much rather the federal government come up with a good compromise bill that both sides could agree with.  But I don't expect to see one come out of our current partisan make-up.

But kudos on making a comment on a post from a week ago.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @4.2.2    last year

Never is and always the defense of the indefensible . . .

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5  Dig    last year

Yes, there is a rational, logical (and also non-religious) argument against abortion. 

When two gametes combine, each contributing the half-genome they bring from each parent, and a zygote is formed, you have the very first complete cell of a new human individual. 

That's it in a nutshell.

We generally don't bat an eye at laws protecting the lives of human individuals after they've left the womb, but the new individual began all the way back with the very first cell. Every one of us began with just one cell. So, really, it's just about applying the same laws to individuals who are still inside the womb.

We go through many stages of development over the course of our lives — from zygote, to blastocyst, to embryo, to fetus, to baby, to toddler, to child, to teenager, to young adult, to middle-aged adult, to elderly adult. Our cells are dividing the entire time (we never really stop growing), and we can look very different from stage to stage, but we are human individuals with complete and unique DNA from beginning to end, from the very first cell to the very last.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a raving anti-abortion lunatic. I think it should be legal and available for medical reasons pertaining to the safety of the mother, but for a while now I've been on the fence about elective abortions (just to end unwanted pregnancies). There's also the incest and rape thing, so yeah, the issue has complexities, but like I said, still on the fence in general.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Dig @5    last year
Yes, there is a rational, logical (and also non-religious) argument against abortion. 

When two gametes combine, each contributing the half-genome they bring from each parent, and a zygote is formed, you have the very first complete cell of a new human individual. 

That's it in a nutshell.

So? A zygote is nothing more than a single, undifferentiated cell. A characteristic shared by all mammals. There is nothing unique or special about it. That is a biological standpoint. Not a legal one. 

So, really, it's just about applying the same laws to individuals who are still inside the womb.

The problem is, laws cannot be applied equally to both the unborn and the and pregnant woman. From a legal standpoint, the woman is a person with rights. The unborn is not. 

We go through many stages of development over the course of our lives — from zygote, toblastocyst, to embryo, to fetus, to baby, to toddler, to child, to teenager, to young adult, to middle-aged adult, to elderly adult.Our cells are dividing the entire time (we never really stop growing), and we can look very different from stage to stage, but we are human individuals with complete and unique DNA from beginning to end, from the very first cell to the very last.

Yes, but it is the gestational time that is the focus.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a raving anti-abortion lunatic. I think it should be legal and available for medical reasons pertaining to the safety of the mother, but for a while now I've been on the fence about elective abortions (just to end unwanted pregnancies). There's also the incest and rape thing, so yeah, the issue has complexities, but like I said, still on the fence in general.

Few things are simple. Abortion is certainly not one of them. Regardless of the circumstances, pregnancy affects the woman most, if not entirely, and she has autonomy to decide how she wants her body used, if she does at all.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.1.1  Dig  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1    last year
So? A zygote is nothing more than a single, undifferentiated cell. A characteristic shared by all mammals. There is nothing unique or special about it.

It's not about other mammals. Hell, we kill and eat other mammals all the time. The special quality is that it is human. Sane humans tend to think it a horrible crime to wantonly kill other humans. Should murder laws be stricken from the books?

That is a biological standpoint. Not a legal one.

Absolutely. But legality is often fleeting and changeable and doesn't negate biology, it doesn't negate the fact that humans in their earliest stages of development are still humans. New human life begins with the zygote, not at birth, or when we are 13, 18, 21, or any other age. That's cold, hard biological science – observable and testable.

The problem is, laws cannot be applied equally to both the unborn and the and pregnant woman. 

So? Laws aren't applied equally to children and adults anyway.

From a legal standpoint, the woman is a person with rights. The unborn is not.

Perhaps the question should be that as human beings (totally innocent and defenseless ones at that), shouldn't the unborn have some rights? At the very least to not be killed when they are viable and healthy and there is no danger to the mother?

Yes, but it is the gestational time that is the focus.

Maybe it shouldn't be. I mean, if we want to be logical, rational, and science-minded. 

Regardless of the circumstances, pregnancy affects the woman most, if not entirely, and she has autonomy to decide how she wants her body used, if she does at all.

Even when another human life is directly involved? One of the reasons you and I and everyone else is here to have this conversation is that we weren't killed before we were born. I mean, the life of the unborn has to matter too, right? Especially if they are viable, healthy and no danger to the mother. Why does there seem to be an opinion out there that humans who are as yet unborn shouldn't matter AT ALL?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dig @5.1.1    last year
no danger to the mother.

That is just not medical reality.  Pregnancy is always a state of heightened health risk for the mother.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.1.3  Dig  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.2    last year

You know what I mean. Where the risk becomes very high. A circumstance where a doctor might suggest ending the pregnancy because of a medical threat to the woman.

I can't remember her name, but consider the woman from Texas who made rounds on the news lately, the one who was told to go out to the parking lot and wait until she was nearly dead before they could help her. That kind of thing can't happen. Abortion for medical reasons like that should absolutely be legal. Looks like someone needs to figure out how to write up the regulations better in states where abortion has been banned, so doctors aren't afraid of going to jail for doing the medically correct thing.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dig @5.1.3    last year

There is always risk, Dig, and those risks aren't always identifiable.  For example, blood clots are a risk of pregnancy, and can be both sudden and fatal.  Yesterday's woman with a "low risk" pregnancy could be tomorrow's woman dead of a heart attack or stroke.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Dig @5.1.1    last year
It's not about other mammals. Hell, we kill and eat other mammals all the time. The special quality is that it is human. Sane humans tend to think it a horrible crime to wantonly kill other humans. Should murder laws be stricken from the books?

Murder infringes on others rights and bodily autonomy. So no, they should not be stricken. But a zygote is just a cell. It's not a person and has no rights. Our bodies lose cells all the time. Usually no big loss. 

Absolutely. But legality is often fleeting and changeable and doesn't negate biology, it doesn't negate the fact that humans in their earliest stages of development are still humans. New human life begins with the zygote, not at birth, or when we are 13, 18, 21, or any other age. That's cold, hard biological science – observable and testable. 

In matters of law, biology takes a back seat. It can be used in law, depending on the situation. But it does not make law. 

So? Laws aren't applied equally to children and adults anyway.

Laws giving rights to children does not take away rights from the parents. Giving rights to the unborn takes away rights from the pregnant woman. 

Perhaps the question should be that as human beings (totally innocent and defenseless ones at that),

Emotional appeal. "Innocent" of what exactly?

shouldn't the unborn have some rights?

No!

At the very least to not be killed when they are viable and healthy and there is no danger to the mother?

Pregnancy and birth is always a danger to the woman. Abortion is far safer, easier, and cheaper. 

Maybe it shouldn't be. I mean, if we want to be logical, rational, and science-minded. 

Since the issue is about abortion, then gestation is the only time that matters. At birth, abortion becomes a moot point. 

Even when another human life is directly involved?

It's not yet a person. 

One of the reasons you and I and everyone else is here to have this conversation is that we weren't killed before we were born.

So? There are plenty of others who engage in discussions like this one. But us being here was by the choice of our mothers.

I mean, the life of the unborn has to matter too, right? Especially if they are viable, healthy and no danger to the mother. Why does there seem to be an opinion out there that humans who are as yet unborn shouldn't matter AT ALL?

That's for the pregnant woman to decide.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.1.6  Dig  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.5    last year
Murder infringes on others rights and bodily autonomy. So no, they should not be stricken. But a zygote is just a cell. It's not a person and has no rights. Our bodies lose cells all the time. Usually no big loss.

A zygote is more than just a cell. It's the progenitor cell from which all of an individual's other cells originate. It's not like the 330 billion cells that average adults lose and replace daily. The loss of a zygote is the loss of a life.

In matters of law, biology takes a back seat.

I suspect very few laws are written by biologists. 

Giving rights to the unborn takes away rights from the pregnant woman. 

The only thing taken away would be the right to kill it for no medical reason.

Emotional appeal. "Innocent" of what exactly?

Are you being serious? It's not an appeal to emotion, it's just a statement of fact. The unborn are innocent of doing anything that would warrant the use of deadly force. If a person violently assaults you and you end up killing them instead, you very likely won't be charged with murder on the grounds of self-defense. The person who attacked you wasn't "innocent", but the unborn are.

Pregnancy and birth is always a danger to the woman. Abortion is far safer, easier, and cheaper.

What point are you trying to make here? That every pregnancy should be aborted because there's always a risk to women?

It's not yet a person.

That's just semantics. It's a human life. To prove it all you have to do is not kill it and wait a while.

That's for the pregnant woman to decide.

But why should that be? Ending a pregnancy is ending a life. Do you acknowledge that or not?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1    last year
From a legal standpoint, the woman is a person with rights. The unborn is not. 

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (2004) says otherwise.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dig @5.1.6    last year
What point are you trying to make here? That every pregnancy should be aborted because there's always a risk to women?

No, that a pregnant woman should be the one to decide whether she chooses to risk her life and health to continue a pregnancy. 

That the pregnant woman should be the one to decide whether she chooses to allow the continued use of her organs and tissues to sustain another life - a right we allow to everyone, even the deceased, when we're talking about organ transplantation.  We do not allow the wishes of the state to supersede the will of the deceased in such matters;  why should we allow the wishes of the state to supersede the will of the living?

Women will still choose to have children.  They always have, despite the risk being greater in the past.  But the operative word is "choose".

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.1.9  Dig  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.8    last year
No, that a pregnant woman should be the one to decide whether she chooses to risk her life and health to continue a pregnancy. 

So if a pregnant woman goes to see her doctor, who examines her and says she looks great and that everything is going well, she should be able to just say, "Nope. End it. Kill it." for no medical reason?

I know that's how it's been, but I'm asking if that's how it really should be? I mean in that example, that's a perfectly viable life she's carrying.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.10  charger 383  replied to  Dig @5.1.9    last year

Yes 

Who is doing the carrying?  Do you have the right to force another person to do unpaid work aginst their will? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dig @5.1.9    last year

Yes.  Because if he's being honest, her doctor knows she's safer not pregnant than pregnant.

Do I think that should be absolute?  No.  The point of viability seems reasonable to me.  At that point, a c-section can be performed that will (hopefully) allow for a living child, while discontinuing (mostly) risk to the mother.

Dig, you will never have to remember to make sure to move around every few hours, even when in a confined space like a car or airplane, to lessen the risk that your pregnancy will cause you to have a blood clot.  You'll never have to worry that you'll bleed out after giving birth.

You'll never have to worry about severe tears during childbirth that will affect your ability to control your bladder and/or bowels for the rest of your life, or prevent you from ever having sex without pain.

You'll never have to worry that you'll have a fetus die in utero, leading to sepsis, or, in my case, hemorrhage when the placenta wouldn't deliver.  I watched my vitals tank on the monitor before the doctor decided that the placenta required surgical removal, and had to be done in the OR because I was losing blood too fast to wait for another epidural to take effect.  That was a healthy pregnancy, right up until it wasn't.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.11    last year

That's got to be so devastating - my sister went through something similar, Sally (would have been her name) died in utero about a week or so prior to her due date and she had to deliver a full term deceased child - I just cannot imagine the pain the family goes through over something like this (I mean I can, but you know what I mean) and to think that some people think women change their minds at 9 months and want to abort 'up to or during birth' 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.13  Split Personality  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.7    last year

Not at all.  It only provides limited retribution depending on where the crime was committed and who was involved.

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism. Due to the principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution , federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual U.S. states , although 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide . Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

The law does not grant the unborn universal rights, it expands the retribution by the survivors when a woman who has not sought an abortion and appears to be carrying to full term is killed along with her unborn child.

It is an Act of revenge, not a civil right of the unborn.

It has zero to do with a woman's right to control her own body and health care.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.1.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.12    last year

Thank you.  It was.  I was 18 weeks along, and at a routine prenatal visit, no fetal heartbeat could be found.  The lack of heartbeat was confirmed by ultrasound.  That was on a Friday.  Sunday night, I was admitted to induce labor.  And that was the worst physical pain I've ever experienced.  I had no epidural; pain meds only worked for about 15 minutes, but could only be administered every hour.  It went on that way all night.

The next day, an anesthesiologist finally came on duty, and administered an epidural.  I delivered a tiny baby we named after my father and my ex's brother.  And then I just kept bleeding, waiting for the placenta to deliver.  I knew my vitals were going south, and the doctor said it was time to deliver surgically.  He and the anesthesiologist consulted at my bedside about how best to achieve anesthesia, since my epidural had long worn off.

"Ten minutes to surgical anesthesia."

"We don't have that long."

So I had general anesthesia.  I remember the meds burning while going in the IV, and I remember being extubated.

chose to take on the risks of pregnancy.  The first time, all went well.  The second time, it went terribly.  I wouldn't force any other woman to do likewise.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.16  author  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.7    last year

That does not establish or enumerate rights for the unborn. 

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.1.17  Dig  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.10    last year
Who is doing the carrying?  Do you have the right to force another person to do unpaid work aginst their will?

If you're going to ignore the innocent human life being ended, if that's not suppose to matter, then why have any laws at all, Charger? I mean, what's the point? Just let anarchy reign.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.18  charger 383  replied to  Dig @5.1.17    last year

fetus does not count, it is inside of and pugged in to someone else.  

The fetus's life has not begun yet 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.19  charger 383  replied to  Dig @5.1.17    last year

Do you think the government should be able to force you to keep someone in your house that you don't want there?  And let them take your food, use your bathroom, keep you awake, disrupt your usual activities, run up bills, worry you and generally disrupt your life?  

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.1.20  Dig  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.11    last year

I'm sorry about your personal experience with a pregnancy that turned bad, but you're making it sound like no woman should ever get pregnant again, just in case.

If you don't mind me asking, how would an abortion have helped in your situation, anyway? I mean, if the problem was sudden and unexpected, with no advanced warning, you wouldn't have known to have one ahead of time to prevent it. 

According to Johns Hopkins – Most pregnancies progress without incident. But approximately 8 percent of all pregnancies involve complications that, if left untreated, may harm the mother or the baby.

I understand that 8 percent isn't zero, and of course I'm not a doctor, but from what I've read, a great many of the complications are treatable and don't end in disaster for either the mother or the baby.

Not to be repetitive, but are you really of the opinion that the 92% who have no complications at all should just be able to kill their unborn child (an innocent and defenseless human life) for no reason whatsoever?

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.1.21  Dig  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.18    last year
The fetus's life has not begun yet 

Umm. I think if you took the time to do a little research on that, you'd discover that that is an incredibly incorrect statement.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.1.22  Dig  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.19    last year
Do you think the government should be able to force you to keep someone in your house that you don't want there?  And let them take your food, use your bathroom, keep you awake, disrupt your usual activities, run up bills, worry you and generally disrupt your life? 

Wow. Nice strawman.

We're talking about ending a human life.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.23  charger 383  replied to  Dig @5.1.22    last year

Too good of a point to try to dismiss as a strawman,  

 Until birth is complete there is only potential, preparation is ongoing but no final product that counts

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.24  charger 383  replied to  Dig @5.1.21    last year

The Bible says different in several places

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.1.25  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dig @5.1.20    last year
but you're making it sound like no woman should ever get pregnant again, just in case.

I've said nothing of the sort.  I expressly said that women will choose to get pregnant, as they've always chosen to get pregnant.

If you don't mind me asking, how would an abortion have helped in your situation, anyway?

If that pregnancy had been an unwanted one, and abortion had been prohibited, I'd have been risking my life against my will, and would nearly have lost it, again, against my will.  To me, that's something government doesn't get to tell a woman to do.

Eight percent is nearly one in 10 pregnancies with complications  That adds up pretty quickly.

I am of the opinion that women should have bodily autonomy.  Being forced to undergo a pregnancy is counter to that.  

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.1.26  Dig  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.23    last year
Too good of a point to try to dismiss as a strawman, 

You posted a ridiculous comparison. 

 Until birth is complete there is only potential, preparation is ongoing but no final product that counts

Human life begins with the zygote, the very first cell of a new individual, about nine months before birth. It's not as though we suddenly become a living human at birth, and before that we aren't.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.1.27  Dig  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.24    last year
The Bible says different in several places

I wouldn't know. I'm an atheist.

What difference is an old book of mythology supposed to make anyway?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.28  charger 383  replied to  Dig @5.1.26    last year

When does the Census count you as a person?

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.1.29  Dig  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.25    last year

Okie dokie, then.

I guess I've offered an opinion and made the only point I was trying to make in answer to Gordy's title. No point rehashing it over and over and over, or arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.30  charger 383  replied to  Dig @5.1.27    last year

just a little quick research 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.1.31  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dig @5.1.26    last year

Good point.

A zygote is inarguably a living thing, with human DNA. Equally inarguably, a zygote is not a person - it's a potential person. S-o-o-o... what is proscribed?

Our society crushes human potential millions of times every day: every time a person is discouraged from doing more or better.

Why must they be born if we're not going to take care of them?

As Spock would say, "Illogical..."

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.1.32  Bob Nelson  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.23    last year

The day after birth, there is still only potential. Without constant care, human babies are not viable.

We are marsupials without pouches.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.1.33  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.4    last year
There is always risk, Dig, and those risks aren't always identifiable

So you never leave your house and in fact never leave your bed. Even those activities involve risk. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.1.34  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.33    last year

I am curious - how hard did you have to try to come to such a spectacularly incorrect conclusion?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.1.35  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.34    last year

If you are saying being pregnant is a risk then you must also believe everything else in life a risk because anything you do contains some amount of risk. I one thing that is a minor risk is so frightening for you that you must kill an innocent, you obviously must be afraid of everything else in life. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.1.36  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.35    last year

I see you either did not read, or did not understand, when I said:

Women will still choose to have children.  They always have, despite the risk being greater in the past.  But the operative word is "choose".

Which narrative would you like to go with?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.1.37  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.36    last year

The time to make the choice to have children or not 8s made before she crawls in the sack just like you tell when a man has that choice. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.1.38  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.37    last year

Ideally, yes.

In the real world, contraception fails.  A contraception failure does not make a woman's body your property, to decide to use as an incubator.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.39  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.35    last year

"Innocent" of what, exactly? "Innocense" seems to be one of the more common appeals to emotion in the anti abortion argument. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
5.1.40  Veronica  replied to  Dig @5.1.22    last year

How do you feel about forced living organ donation?  How about forced blood donations?  Both of those will save a human life.  Are you open for that?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.1.41  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.39    last year

Innocent of any wrong doing. Just what has a baby in utero done to deserve a death sentence?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.42  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.41    last year

There is no baby in utero. How is it deemed "innocent?" Was it charged with a crime? What it does is leech off the woman's body and resources,  even to her detriment. If she doesn't want her body to be used that way, that is good enough reason to have an abortion if she chooses.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.43  Tessylo  replied to  Dig @5.1.29    last year

You're the one re-hashing and arguing for the sake of arguing here.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.1.44  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.42    last year

If she didn't want her body used that way she should have thought of that before she took the actions that conceived it. 

Was it charged with a crime?

No crime. That is why it is/was. Innocent. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
5.1.45  Veronica  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.44    last year
No crime. That is why it is/was. Innocent. 

Neither have I been charged with a crime - so I am innocent - my life also has meaning.  AND nothing should take precedent over that.

As for your other asinine statement - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.1.46  arkpdx  replied to  Veronica @5.1.45    last year
Neither have I been charged with a crime - so I am innocent - my life also has meaning.

Then I would suggest you not try to get an abortion in any of the states they outlawedit or after the length of time the state has deemed one is improper. 

As for your life having meaning, yes it does and if being pregnant endangers your life then by all means get one. No mother no baby. But both should be tried to bs saved if possible. A abortion of convenience does not fall into that category in any way shape or form. Don't go into how it is risky to be pregnant. Life is risky. You do things every day that are riskier than being pregnant and having a baby

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
5.1.47  Veronica  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.46    last year
You do things every day that are riskier than being pregnant and having a baby

You, as a man have no fucking clue how risky to physical, emotional and mental health of the woman, so YOU have say in the matter. So don't go into how you as a man knows how risky pregnancy is - your arguments are asinine.

As far as those states - I stay as FAR AWAY from them as possible.  

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
5.1.48  Veronica  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.46    last year
How risky is pregnancy in the US?
Simply being pregnant poses significant short-term and long-term risks to health, particularly in the US. We have the highest rate of serious pregnancy-related complications among developed nations, resulting in   about 700 deaths a year nationally . Jan 25, 2023

Is pregnancy safe for everyone? - Harvard Health

.

If a woman doesn't want to RISK her life - who the fuck are you to tell her she has to?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.1.49  arkpdx  replied to  Veronica @5.1.48    last year

If she doesn't want to risk her life she should abstain from having sex. That is the only way you can be 100% sure not to get pregnant. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.50  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.49    last year

You want to take the fun out of things

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.1.51  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.50    last year

That is what I am told a man should do if he does not want to be a father, abstain from sex. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.52  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.51    last year

I'm not going live that way  But those against choice should

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.53  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.44    last year
If she didn't want her body used that way she should have thought of that before she took the actions that conceived it. 

Too bad! It's her body, so she can do what she wants with it. 

No crime. That is why it is/was. Innocent.

A declaration of innocence comes after a charge of a crime. But hey, if you want a crime, then it's guilty of trespassing in the woman's personal property against consent. Namely, herself. 

Then I would suggest you not try to get an abortion in any of the states they outlawedit or after the length of time the state has deemed one is improper. 

No state criminalizes the woman for having an abortion. Only against those who perform one. 

A abortion of convenience does not fall into that category in any way shape or form.

That is not for you to decide for anyone else. And pregnancy by its very nature poses risks to the woman. Having an abortion is akin to preventative medicine. 

Don't go into how it is risky to be pregnant. Life is risky. You do things every day that are riskier than being pregnant and having a baby

Abortion helps negate the risk of pregnancy and childbirth. 

That is what I am told a man should do if he does not want to be a father, abstain from sex. 

Completely unrealistic. As a man, you also have no say in what a woman chooses to do with her body.

If she doesn't want to risk her life she should abstain from having sex. That is the only way you can be 100% sure not to get pregnant. 

Why should she? Abortion is a sure way to prevent remaining pregnant. Safer, easier, and cheaper than pregnancy and childbirth too.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.54  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.53    last year

funny how I can't find the queue of pro-life thumpers willing to step up to volunteer their services for all the results of unwanted pregnancies they wish to create with their actions. you'd think they'd be jumping at the chance to pad the student rolls at their thumper madrasas.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.55  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.53    last year

If all women stop having sex because they don't want to get pregnant...what are the men going to do?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.56  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.55    last year

What men do in prison, screw each other...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.57  Trout Giggles  replied to  JBB @5.1.56    last year

I see a large market opening up for blow-up dolls

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
5.1.58  Veronica  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.49    last year

Be realistic.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.59  Trout Giggles  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.55    last year

I would really like an answer to this question from the anti-choicers

Wait I will just add it to the bottom

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.60  author  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.55    last year

Hand exercises 😉

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.61  author  Gordy327  replied to  Dig @5.1.6    last year
A zygote is more thanjusta cell. It's the progenitor cell from which all of an individual's other cells originate. It's not like the 330 billion cells that average adults lose and replace daily. The loss of a zygote is the loss of a life. 

Actually, yes it is just a cell. A single, undifferentiated cell which is less specialized than any other cell in the body. 

I suspect very few laws are written by biologists. 

They're written by politicians who seem to have very little knowledge of biology. 

The only thing taken away would be the right to kill it for no medical reason.

A woman's autonomy and right to choose for herself would be taken away. Medically, abortion is much safer and physically easier than pregnancy and birth. 

Are you being serious? It's not an appeal to emotion, it's just a statement of fact.

What legal charge are they being declared "innocent" of? When someone declares "innocent," you might as well be saying (in a Mrs. Lovejoy voice) "Oh won't someone please think of the children." Same difference. 

The unborn are innocent of doing anything that would warrant the use of deadly force.

Trespassing if not wanted. Possible risk of harm against the woman. Using her body against her will if she does not consent. 

What point are you trying to make here? That every pregnancy should be aborted because there's always a risk to women?

That's for the woman herself to decide. 

That's just semantics. It's a human life. To prove it all you have to do is not kill it and wait a while.

"Human life" is a biological determination. Not a legal one. 

But why should that be? 

It's her body being used and her life being affected. That's why! 

Ending a pregnancy is ending a life. Do you acknowledge that or not?

Yes, and so what? 

So if a pregnant woman goes to see her doctor, who examines her and says she looks great and that everything is going well, she should be able to just say, "Nope. End it. Kill it." for no medical reason?

Yes! The real question is, would a doctor agree to perform the procedure? 

I know that's how it's been, but I'm asking if that's how it really should be? I mean in that example, that's a perfectly viable life she's carrying.

So what? It's not viable until about 23-24 weeks gestation and most women are probably not going to suddenly have an elective abortion at that point. 

Human life begins with the zygote, the very first cell of a new individual, about nine months before birth. It's not as though we suddenly become a living human at birth, and before that we aren't.

It's a human zygote. But "life" seems to be too big of an umbrella term and too much emphasis placed on it. What it is not is a person until birth. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dig @5    last year
So, really, it's just about applying the same laws to individuals who are still inside the womb.

Prohibiting abortion gives precedence to the fetus over the woman.  It forces her to use her body for the maintenance of a life other than her own.  We literally give more rights to corpses, whose organs cannot be harvested without the person's consent before death, than we do to living women who are disallowed an abortion.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.2.1  Dig  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.2    last year
Prohibiting abortion gives precedence to the fetus over the woman.

I don't want to prohibit it completely, I just think the idea that it's supposed be some kind of casual, completely unrestricted free-for-all should give sane persons pause.

And the fetus doesn't have to have precedence over the woman. Just an equal right to life.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.2.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dig @5.2.1    last year
I just think the idea that it's supposed be some kind of casual, completely unrestricted free-for-all should give sane persons pause.

Nobody is advocating for that.

And the fetus doesn't have to have precedenceoverthe woman. Just an equal right to life.

Until we can produce an artificial uterus that can gestate to term, prohibiting abortion will always prioritize the fetus over the woman.  Pregnancy is 14 times more likely to result in a woman's death than an abortion.  A pregnant woman's life and health is always more at risk than a non-pregnant woman's life.  If we have an equal right to life, then one's life cannot always be put at risk for the other's.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.2.3  Dig  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.2.2    last year
Nobody is advocating for that.

Come on, Sandy. Many have advocated for that. I've heard it from activists for years. Probably since the beginning of Roe. The "no questions asked, total right of a woman to end a pregnancy" thing. 

If we have an equal right to life, then one's life cannot always be put at risk for the other's.

I should have amended that. I meant to but got distracted. Instead of an equal right to life, how about an nearly equal right, with the woman having the slight preference?

I don't know how that would be written into legalese, but the end result should probably be the prohibition of simple, at-will abortions for no medical reason. And before anyone jumps on me about those not really being a thing, I have known about several of them taking place in my own social circle in my late teens and early twenties, and they were all done to simply take care of unwanted pregnancies among promiscuous, partying young adults.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
5.2.4  Freewill  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.2.2    last year
Nobody is advocating for that.

There are some, in my experience, advocating "abortion on demand" up to or during the point of birth.  I participated in several Walk for Life events, where many of those lining the parade route waved signs to that effect and hurled insults, profanity and even liquids and objects at those who were marching in support of the slogan "Choose Life".  Those supporting the "Choose Life" slogan were not "anti-choice" nor were they rabid anti-abortion activists, yet they were met with the the most vile and rabid seemingly pro-abortionists I had ever seen. I'm not saying that those we encountered represent the bulk of those advocating for abortion rights, but they do exist.  Probably a very small percentage but most certainly the loudest.

Having said that, part of the problem with the discussion of this topic IMO is that each side wishes to paint the other as the worst possible caricature of their position.  The pro-life side acts as if the pro-choice side are all pushing for the abortion on demand up to and including partial birth abortion using the most barbaric of methods, labeling them "pro-abortion" or "baby killers".  While the pro choice camp wishes to paint the pro-life supporters as woman-hating, abortion clinic bombing, anti-choice, forced-birth, religious zealots who want to trample the rights of woman to control their own body.  Neither caricature is true of course.  VERY few are truly "pro-abortion" or out to kill babies, and not all pro-lifer's want to forcibly strip women of a choice ("forced-birth"), they simply wish to encourage folks to choose life, many on the basis of science and embryology. 

There is plenty of room for common ground if we can get past the extreme views and stereotypes and stop viewing each other as extremists.  And, if we can, address and do what we can to disavow those few extremists who do the most damage to our respective positions that would be helpful. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.2.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freewill @5.2.4    last year
not all pro-lifer's want to forcibly strip women of a choice ("anti-choice"), they simply wish to encourage folks to choose life, many on the basis of science and embryology. 

There are enough like this that women are sitting in parking lots waiting to bleed out before they can receive life-saving medical care, in opposition to science and embryology, and, as it happens, life.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.6  JBB  replied to  Freewill @5.2.4    last year

Nice diatribe butt nearly all terminations occur in the first trimester. Late term abortions are highly regulated, rare and usually because the fetus is not viable or there is a serious threat to the life of the mother. In other cases the mother is a child or a victim of rape or incest where the perp, who is often a family member, never allows them to seek medical care (for legal reasons) until the pregnancy is obvious. So, yes, in some cases some people si advocate for some late term abortions. These are the "some" you speak of who were counterprotesters at that pro-forced birth parade you were so proudly marching in. Sorry if your feelings were hurt so badly!

The fifth grade rape and incest victim in my home town in Oklahoma who was forced to deliver her father's child, or should I say grandchild?, is sad too. Her parents kept her hid away until she was seven months and couldn't abort under Oklahoma's draconian law? Happy? This is what you marched FOR! She and I are the some you spoke of...

She gave birth to a healthy girl whom her parents are being allowed to raise, too...

I personally know of zero liberals who think late term elective abortions should be unregulated or become common. I do know "some" who strongly believe they should be legal in certain circumstances.

Everything is not all about your feelings!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.7  JBB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.2.5    last year

Apparently some liberals (bad people) believing some late term abortions (bad things) should be legal in some cases is so bad that they justify some draconian laws making all or most terminations illegal or limiting them to just the first six weeks...

Some people? Indeed! Some people suck!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.2.8  author  Gordy327  replied to  Dig @5.2.1    last year
I don't want to prohibit it completely, I just think the idea that it's supposed be some kind of casual, completely unrestricted free-for-all should give sane persons pause.

Viability is a reasonable compromise.

And the fetus doesn't have to have precedence over  the woman. Just an equal right to life.

Impossible. 

Come on, Sandy. Many have advocated for that. I've heard it from activists for years. Probably since the beginning of Roe. The "no questions asked, total right of a woman to end a pregnancy" thing. 

The difference is, women are likely not enduring a pregnancy and then deciding near the end to suddenly want an abortion. Neither are any credible physicians performing elective abortions at that stage. 

how about an nearly equal right, with the woman having the slight preference?

Define "nearly." Any law cannot be ambiguous like that. 

I don't know how that would be written into legalese, but the end result should probably be the prohibition of simple, at-will abortions for no medical reason.

In other words, no abortions except in cases of health threats against the pregnant woman, right? You do realize that such laws in some states is why there is such contention about abortion right now, right? It's no different than laws banning abortion at 15 or 6 weeks (as some states now do). Some people obviously take issue with that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Freewill @5.2.4    last year

It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that abortions are being elected to be performed 'up to or during birth'

THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @5.2.6    last year

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.2.11  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.2.2    last year
Nobody is advocating for that.

They absolutely are.  

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.2.12  Dig  replied to  Gordy327 @5.2.8    last year
Impossible. 

Yeah. I already acknowledged that above, but you knew that when you replied.

The difference is, women are likely not enduring a pregnancy and then deciding near the end to suddenly want an abortion. Neither are any credible physicians performing elective abortions at that stage. 

Huh? You're arguing against points I haven't made.

In other words, no abortions except in cases of health threats against the pregnant woman, right?

I'm suggesting that maybe that should be the case. If science shows that new human life begins with the zygote, then killing a zygote or anything that comes after is killing a human life. Why should that observation be controversial, or even arguable for that matter? Why shouldn't our laws reflect that reality?

You do realize that such laws in some states is why there is such contention about abortion right now, right?

The laws that Republicans have been hurriedly passing in various states absolutely need work.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
5.2.13  Freewill  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.2.5    last year
There are enough like this that women are sitting in parking lots waiting to bleed out before they can receive life-saving medical care, in opposition to science and embryology, and, as it happens, life

Understood, I read that story about Jaci Statton in Oklahoma here and I agree that this is why we need to have rational discussions about this rather than knee-jerk legislation like what has happened in Oklahoma resulting in three separate laws that are overlapping, contradictory and confusing.  The article does indicate that the courts and legislature are working out exceptions and changes to make the laws clearer and open to exceptions, which is certainly a step in the right direction.

The state Supreme Court  ruled in late March  that abortions must be allowed when a patient's life is in danger even if there is no medical emergency. The state legislature is also  considering new exceptions  to the abortion ban, and more court challenges are underway.  The incident where the Stattons were told to wait in the parking lot until Jaci's condition became life threatening happened two weeks before Oklahoma's state Supreme Court weighed in to clarify exceptions to the state's bans.

Honestly, I was surprised that Roe v. Wade had actually been overturned, and I was concerned that it would open up the floodgates to those who take the more extreme pro-life positions to push legislation that does not think the issue all the way through.  I actually think that the Roe v. Wade position regarding viability was a good compromise, but it still left the door open to State decisions on abortions later in pregnancy (after 21 weeks), so I'm not sure if these new laws in places like Oklahoma would have happened even if RvW had not been overturned.  The lack of exceptions for women like Mrs. Statton is appalling.  It certainly seems to me that you are right that those who take the "Choose Life" slogan into the realm of force have found their way into politics and law-making and some serious discussions and changes need to be made.  This is why I feel so strongly about discarding the extremist positions and stereotypes on this subject and coming together to agree on sensible common ground.   

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.2.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freewill @5.2.13    last year
I was concerned that it would open up the floodgates to those who who take the more extreme pro-life positions to push legislation that does not think the issue all the way through.

Your concerns were prescient.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
5.2.15  Freewill  replied to  JBB @5.2.6    last year
These are the "some" you speak of who were counterprotesters at that pro-forced birth parade you were so proudly marching in. Sorry if your feelings were hurt so badly!

First, you don't know that is who the "some" people were, you were not there. 

Second, thank you for making my point about those who jump right to the extreme caricature of folks on this subject. "Pro-forced birth parade"?  Yeah talk like that will surely spark opinion changing discussion.

Third, that was certainly not my reason for being at that parade, nor the reason for those around me.  As I have stated, many support the "Choose Life" slogan because they understand there must be a choice and they simply wish to point out reasons and resources available to make choosing life a more viable and attractive alternative.  Many like me are dead set against the force being used in several states recently, particularly without exceptions for the "some" you described above.  I'm sorry if that hurts YOUR feelings so badly.

Fourth, my feelings have nothing to do with this.   I am simply pointing out what I saw and suggesting that more rational and sensible discussion needs to be had rather than jumping to extremes (like some State legislatures have recently), or accusing those who have a different more centric and sensible position of belonging to or supporting those extremes.  I have said before that I will likely piss off both sides of this argument because I am both pro-choice and pro-life and I see nothing wrong with the slogan "Choose Life" to the extent it is not hi-jacked by either extreme.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
5.2.16  Freewill  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.2.14    last year
Your concerns were prescient.

Unfortunately this time, yes.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
5.2.17  Freewill  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.9    last year
It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that abortions are being elected to be performed 'up to or during birth' THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN

Actually it does happen, but very rarely as I stated before.  See pretty good resource HERE :

Abortions occurring at or after 21 weeks gestation are rare. According to the CDC’s  Abortion Surveillance Data , the vast majority of abortions (91%) occur at or before 13 weeks gestation, while 7.7% occur from weeks 14 to 20 gestation, and just 1.2% of abortions are performed at or after 21 weeks ( Figure 1 ). This amounts to approximately 5,200 abortions per year occurring at or after 21 weeks, however this is an underestimate as only 33 reporting areas report abortions to the CDC by gestational age.
The CDC does not elaborate on the breakdown by gestational age for abortions occurring past 21 weeks, but it is likely that the vast majority occur soon after 21 weeks rather than in the later in the pregnancy. While very limited data exists on this issue, a  study  from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year). This may overestimate current day numbers, given the abortion rate is currently at a  historic low , and restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy have increased.

And as JBB points out, there may be very compelling reasons why some will seek abortions at this later stage in pregnancy.  And I agree that it is ridiculous to overblow this as a reason to restrict all abortions, or even later stage abortions, without sensible exceptions. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.2.18  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @5.2.6    last year
Everything is not all about your feelings

Nor yours

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.19  Tessylo  replied to  Freewill @5.2.17    last year

No need for me to check out your source.  My comment stands.  IT DOESN'T HAPPEN ELECTIVELY UP TO AND DURING BIRTH.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @5.2.4    last year
There is plenty of room for common ground if we can get past the extreme views and stereotypes and stop viewing each other as extremists. 

For emphasis!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.21  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.20    last year

Two in three Americans believe abortions should be rare, safe and legal in the early stages of pregnancy. It is utter bullshit when rightwing anti-choice advocates claim that pro-choice Americans lust for unregulated abortions right up to birth! 

Making abortions illegal does not stop abortions because the demand for terminations is based on the incidents of unwanted pregnancies. Three things dramatically reduce the demand for termination services. They are...

1. Mandatory sex education for all prior to puberty. 

2. Easy access to birth control without spousal or parental notification.

3. Access to family planning services such as are provided by Planned Parenthood.

The galling condescension anti-abortion zealots cast upon everyone else is crap!

Most of America is sick of their bullshit...

Stopping unwanted pregnancies stops abortions. Making abortions illegal just turns women and doctors into criminals.

The real abortion rates in many primarily Catholic countries where abortions were mostly illegal like Mexico is about twice that of the US because the demand for terminations is mainly because poor women also have more children than they can take care of who keep getting pregnant because of ignorance and the lack of birth control and family planning.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @5.2.21    last year
It is utter bullshit when rightwing anti-choice advocates claim that pro-choice Americans lust for unregulated abortions right up to birth! 

Indeed.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.2.23  Bob Nelson  replied to  JBB @5.2.21    last year

Everything you say is true... for America today.

Just to stir the pot: A newborn baby is no more viable than a six-week embryo. They both require care to survive. 

We must someday determine who/what should be legally protected... annd more importantly, why!

Religion gives answers, but only to believers. The law cannot be used as an answer because that would be circular logic.

Science and logic. ONLY those two. The debate in America is 90% religion and 10% science.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.24  JBB  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.23    last year

I remember when abortions were illegal and knew many young women gave up their hopes and dreams to get married, have kids and end up poor single moms before they were twenty. They did not have a choice. Before anyone gets all judgemental let me remind them what my ancient Mother always says. "Good girls do it too"...

I knew girls who died from "botch jobs".

Whether or not to become a parent is a serious DECISION! When to become a parent is an important DECISION. Who one becomes a parent with is a personal DECISION. It is damn hard to make good decisions if one has No CHOICE!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.2.25  Bob Nelson  replied to  JBB @5.2.24    last year

I agree completely.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.2.26  author  Gordy327  replied to  Dig @5.2.12    last year
Yeah. I already acknowledged that above, but you knew that when you replied.

Just making sure. 

Huh? You're arguing against points I haven't made

Not saying you made it. You implied some think abortion should be a free for all. Even if true, no one is likely going to go to extremes like elective late term abortions. 

I'm suggesting that maybe that should be the case. If science shows that new human life begins with the zygote, then killing a zygote or anything that comes after is killing a human life. Why should that observation be controversial, or even arguable for that matter? Why shouldn't our laws reflect that reality?

Because the woman's life, choices, and autonomy must also be considered and respected.

The laws that Republicans have been hurriedly passing in various states absolutely need work.

Need work? They should be repealed asap. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
5.2.27  Veronica  replied to  Dig @5.2.12    last year
I'm suggesting that maybe that should be the case. If science shows that new human life begins with the zygote, then killing a zygote or anything that comes after is killing a human life. Why should that observation be controversial, or even arguable for that matter? Why shouldn't our laws reflect that reality?

So answer my question I asked you at 5.1.40.  

How do you feel about forced living organ donation?  How about forced blood donations?  Both of those will save a human life.  Are you open for that?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.28  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.23    last year
A newborn baby is no more viable than a six-week embryo.

That is not the meaning of the word 'viable' / 'viability' in this context:

Viability is ‘the ability [of a developing fetus] to survive independent of a pregnant woman’s womb’.

It is (and I know you know this all too well) a measure of the development of the fetus.   A viable fetus is sufficiently developed so that with normal care (not creating an artificial womb) it could survive outside of its mother's body.

Personally, I think viability is a logical milestone for when abortion is no longer a humane, logical option.   Viability occurs in the second trimester and thus gives all women plenty of time to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.  

Perrie adds a further criterion (which I think is good) and that is the development of a functioning nervous system (which enables the fetus to feel pain).   This also happens in the second trimester.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.29  Tessylo  replied to  Freewill @5.2.17    last year

NO, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.30  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.22    last year

I heard the former 'president' promoting that ignorant bullshit - he included after birth as well - how does that work?  Sounds like murder to me.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
5.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dig @5    last year

Dig,

While I respect your POV, a zygote is not a person. It will be a person, provided that a woman lends her womb for the process to happen.

And by that logic, every miscarriage would be an abortion, too, which of course it isn't.

I do believe in a cut-off point, to when personhood is attained, but other than that, although the DNA says human, it is not a person.

I too would prefer women not to use it as a form of birth control. That being said, medical abortion is done much in the same way as the human body does it, and for all those out there who want to do away with that, it falls into the realm of religious belief and therefore not constitutional.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.3.1  Dig  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3    last year
While I respect your POV, a zygote is not a person. It will be a person, provided that a woman lends her womb for the process to happen.

A zygote is the first cell of a new human. It doesn't look like a person, and the cells that come from it won't for some time, but it's still the beginning of a new human. I mean, look the difference between an infant and a 95 year old. They look like completely different lumps of dividing cells, but they are both considered human persons, and it all starts with a zygote. That's point A. There's no demarcation after that.

And by that logic, every miscarriage would be an abortion, too, which of course it isn't.

Semantics, shemantics. Miscarriages are abortions, just naturally occurring ones that people generally aren't at fault for.

I do believe in a cut-off point, to when personhood is attained, but other than that, although the DNA says human, it is not a person.

Logically, the cut off point should be the start of the new individual. 

Think about it like this: As long as everything goes well, medically speaking, what happens to the human cells that begin with a zygote and initiate a pregnancy if they aren't killed? They pop out in about 9 months and become visible and audible and a lot harder to disregard as a non-person. But they were the same cells before they popped out.

medical abortion is done much in the same way as the human body does it

Excepting for the active intervention part.

and for all those out there who want to do away with that, it falls into the realm of religious belief and therefore not constitutional.

Why does it fall into the realm of religious belief? I'm not religious. 

Listen, I actually don't have a hard, immobile position on a lot of this. I'm just trying to respond to the title of Gordy's article and present a logical, rational argument about what biologically constitutes a human life, and asking whether or not we should be intentionally ending them at-will.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
5.3.2  pat wilson  replied to  Dig @5.3.1    last year
But they were the same cells before they popped out.

Do they have the same rights of personhood before they pop out ?

Whose rights prevail, the woman's or the fetus's ?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3    last year
While I respect your POV, a zygote is not a person. It will be a person, provided that a woman lends her womb for the process to happen.

Attempting to protect the practice of abortion for future generations of women who have not yet been conceived grants those future generations of women 'personhood'.  The arguments to protect abortion for future generations of women means they have rights before they have been conceived.

An abortion takes away rights and personhood that was granted before conception.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.3    last year

That is quite a stretch in logic. The Constitution enumerated my rights long before I was born. But I still had to be born to have those rights. Rights and personhood are not conferred until one is actually born.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
5.3.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dig @5.3.1    last year
A zygote is the first cell of a new human. It doesn't look like a person, and the cells that come from it won't for some time, but it's still the beginning of a new human. I mean, look the difference between an infant and a 95 year old. They look like completely different lumps of dividing cells, but they are both considered human persons, and it all starts with a zygote. That's point A. There's no demarcation after that.

While I would not argue that a zygote, it does not feel or think. It does none of the things that a person does. And while a baby and an old person do not look alike, they do both think and feel and enjoy what they engage with, which a zygote does not.

Semantics, shemantics. Miscarriages are abortions, just naturally occurring ones that people generally aren't at fault for.

It is not semantics. Although the outcome is the same (the end of a pregnancy) one is done as a function of the body and the other is purposeful, which is the actual word that is at issue here.

Think about it like this: As long as everything goes well, medically speaking, what happens to the human cells that begin with a zygote and initiate a pregnancy if they aren't killed? They pop out in about 9 months and become visible and audible and a lot harder to disregard as a non-person. But they were the same cells before they popped out.

That is not the in debate here. The argument is against abortion. So consider this. The body regards the zygote as alien. It actually has to turn off parts of the immune system for it to survive. Also, it lives off the woman's body. She is the one who has to endure the pregnancy. The argument against abortion is saying that a woman has to subjugate her rights over a bunch of cells that will become a person, which is giving personhood to cells over an actual person.

Why does it fall into the realm of religious belief? I'm not religious.  Listen, I actually don't have a hard, immobile position on a lot of this. I'm just trying to respond to the title of Gordy's article and present a logical, rational argument about what biologically constitutes a human life, and asking whether or not we should be intentionally ending them at-will.

I apologize for making the assumption that you were religious, but for most, this is a religious argument. I totally get where you are coming from, and as I said earlier, I respect your POV.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.6  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.4    last year
That is quite a stretch in logic. The Constitution enumerated my rights long before I was born. But I still had to be born to have those rights. Rights and personhood are not conferred until one is actually born.

Then you had the rights, protections, and personhood established for future generations.  Your conception transformed your status from the future generation to a specific individual.  Even withholding individual rights, protections, and personhood until birth does not void the rights, protections, and personhood of future generations.

You were endowed with rights, protections, and personhood before you were conceived.  That's why those rights were enumerated in the Constitution.  Your rights, protections, and personhood existed before you existed as a specific individual.  That is a fundamental principle of a civilized society according to founding ideas for the United States.  Like it or not, those fundamental principles really are what makes the United States exceptional.  You have rights, protections, and personhood before you are conceived.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.6    last year
Then you had the rights, protections, and personhood established for future generations.  Your conception transformed your status from the future generation to a specific individual.

A zygote is not yet an individual person. 

  Even withholding individual rights, protections, and personhood until birth does not void the rights, protections, and personhood of future generations.

Future generations have that when they're born. 

You were endowed with rights, protections, and personhood before you were conceived.  That's why those rights were enumerated in the Constitution.  Your rights, protections, and personhood existed before you existed as a specific individual.  That is a fundamental principle of a civilized society according to founding ideas for the United States.  Like it or not, those fundamental principles really are what makes the United States exceptional.  You have rights, protections, and personhood before you are conceived.

None of which actually applies or takes effect until birth. Neither the Constitution nor Federal Law recognizes the unborn as a person with rights. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.9  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.7    last year
None of which actually applies or takes effect until birth. Neither the Constitution nor Federal Law recognizes the unborn as a person with rights. 

A central argument has been that the rights and protections of future generations may not be infringed by invoking God, the Bible, or religion.  The defense of those rights and protections of future generations has been a purely secular argument.  Since only persons have the rights that are being defended, the argument imparts personhood onto future generations.

An argument can be made that future generations is an abstraction and the personhood of future generations is equally as abstract.  But conception is the tangible manifestation of future generations.  Conception brings the abstract into our reality.  There is no denying that 'cluster of cells' is the future generation made real.  Conception only transforms the abstraction of future generations into a tangible manifestation of future generations in our reality.

So, everyone has rights and protections as an abstraction before being conceived.  Arguing over when the abstraction becomes tangible reality doesn't eliminate those rights and protections.  And recognizing those facts does not require God, the Bible, or religion.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
5.3.10  pat wilson  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.6    last year
You have rights, protections, and personhood before you are conceived.

Ludicrous.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
5.3.11  Greg Jones  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.4    last year
"Rights and personhood are not conferred until one is actually born."

Don't you mean up to the point of viability? Since a cesarian birth will produce a living child? 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.4    last year
Rights and personhood are not conferred until one is actually born.

Most rights are not conferred until well after birth. Vote? Drive a car? Drink beer (with or without those terrifying rainbows)? Those are hardly conferred at birth.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.13  GregTx  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.12    last year

Driving a car or drinking beer are not rights. The right to vote is conferred on every American long before they're born.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.14  Bob Nelson  replied to  GregTx @5.3.13    last year
The right to vote is conferred on every American long before they're born.

So.... babies can vote??

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.15  GregTx  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.14    last year

Uhh no..

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
5.3.16  pat wilson  replied to  GregTx @5.3.13    last year

How do you confer rights to a person who doesn't exist ? 

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.17  GregTx  replied to  pat wilson @5.3.16    last year

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.18  Bob Nelson  replied to  GregTx @5.3.15    last year

If the right to vote is conferred before birth, then why not?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.19  Nerm_L  replied to  pat wilson @5.3.10    last year
Ludicrous.

By now most of us, if not all of us, are familiar with religious arguments about the sanctity of life.  I am asking a different, and purely secular, question.  What is the sanctity of rights?

Establishing criteria for eligibility means those rights are earned by fulfilling the criteria.  Establishing criteria for eligibility also means that rights can be granted or taken away by simply changing the criteria for eligibility.   Such rights cannot be considered inviolate or universal.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.20  GregTx  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.18    last year

My best guess would be that it's the same reason you don't hand your toddler a razor-sharp butchers knife to carve up the Thanksgiving turkey...../S

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.21  author  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @5.3.11    last year

Nope, I said at birth. If a c-section is performed,  that is still considered a birth.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.22  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.12    last year

Ok, and your point being...? No rights are conferred until birth anyway.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.23  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.12    last year
Most rights are not conferred until well after birth. Vote? Drive a car? Drink beer (with or without those terrifying rainbows)? Those are hardly conferred at birth.

If driving and drinking beer are examples of rights then they are also examples of rights that can be taken away.

What is the difference between rights and privileges?  It would seem that a right that can taken away isn't really a right but, instead, is a privilege.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
5.3.24  pat wilson  replied to  GregTx @5.3.17    last year

Which exists for "We the People", you know living, breathing, extant people.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.25  GregTx  replied to  pat wilson @5.3.24    last year

So you don't think that those rights extend to future Americans?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
5.3.26  pat wilson  replied to  GregTx @5.3.25    last year

Future Americans do not yet exist so no.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.27  GregTx  replied to  pat wilson @5.3.26    last year

But do those rights?....

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.3.28  Dig  replied to  pat wilson @5.3.2    last year
Do they have the same rights of personhood before they pop out ?

Not where at-will, no-questions-asked abortions are legal.

Whose rights prevail, the woman's or the fetus's ?

In a situation where it's one or the other, I'd have to go with the woman.

Sorry for the late reply. Conversations here often get away from me and I can't keep up because I'm doing other things.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.29  Nerm_L  replied to  pat wilson @5.3.16    last year
How do you confer rights to a person who doesn't exist ? 

Conferred rights aren't the same thing as endowed rights.  But even for conferred rights, those rights are conferred to future generations the same way people plan for a child before there is a pregnancy.

There really are couples who want children.  And they plan ahead for a pregnancy.  Pregnancy is an unavoidable step for transforming the abstract desire for a child into reality.  The idea is that the child will exist in the future; not as an abstraction but as a real individual.  The couple has planned for a real individual which granted the child personhood before there was a pregnancy.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
5.3.30  pat wilson  replied to  GregTx @5.3.27    last year

Rights for what ?  A dream ? A plan ? A wish ?

How do rights exist for something that does not ?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.3.31  arkpdx  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3.5    last year
The body regards the zygote as alien. It actually has to turn off parts of the immune system for it to survive. Also, it lives off the woman's body

So now you are trying to compare an unborn baby to a parasite like a tapeworm or a liver fluke?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.32  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @5.3.31    last year

Biologically, it IS a parasite, by the definition of parasite. Your feelings don't change that.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.33  GregTx  replied to  pat wilson @5.3.30    last year

How do rights exist if their not applied equally to those that are there and those that aren't at the moment? Are your rights subjective to your situation?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.3.34  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.32    last year

So you have some link to a definition of it being a parasite. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.3.35  arkpdx  replied to  pat wilson @5.3.30    last year
How do rights exist for something that does not ?

An unborn baby does exist otherwise what is it they are removing and killing. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.36  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @5.3.34    last year

Most people with a middle-school education in biology understand what a parasite is, arkpdx, and can see how an organism living entirely at the expense of another fits the bill.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.37  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @5.3.33    last year
How do rights exist if their not applied equally to those that are there and those that aren't at the moment?

So, future immigrants to the US have the same rights as present citizens?  Is this a road you're sure you want to go down?

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.38  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.37    last year

When they become citizens? Absolutely. What road are you talking about?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.3.39  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.36    last year
eople with a middle-school education in biology understand what a parasite is, arkpdx, and can see how an organism living entirely at the expense of another fits the bill.

Lol.  They didn't teach you what a species is in middle school?   Because, what you should have learned in middle school is that the fundamental characteristic of a parasite is that its a member of a different species than the host. 

But hey, demeaning human life as  "a parasite" to justify killing it has a long history.  Not company I'd choose to keep, but you be you.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
5.3.40  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.36    last year

Maybe it was my high school biology, but I was taught that a parasite was of a different species than the host.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.41  Tessylo  replied to  GregTx @5.3.33    last year

WHAT THE FUCK?

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.42  GregTx  replied to  Tessylo @5.3.41    last year

Could you be more specific?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.43  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @5.3.38    last year

Oh, no, no.  You want to confer rights on future Americans, and can't have it both ways.  You can't confine that to those who don't even exist yet, and deny it to those who do.  They're both potential future Americans.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.44  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.43    last year

I didn't...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.45  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.3.39    last year

Not necessarily.

an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host

A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.

Scientific meaning "animal or plant that lives on or in and at the expense of another" is first recorded 1640s (implied in parasitical ).

Parasite: A plant or an animal organism that lives in or on another and takes its nourishment from that other organism.

1.  COUNTABLE NOUN
A parasite is a small animal or plant that lives on or inside a larger animal or plant, and gets its food from it.
Any living organism that lives in or on another living organism (host): they include fungi, bacteria, and viruses.

Emotion doesn't change the fact that this is the relation between a fetus and its mother, and neither does getting personal.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.46  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @5.3.44    last year

No, you just claim the Constitution does.  But you seem to believe that it does so selectively, granting Constitutional rights to people not yet conceived, but not to those who actually exist, but live in another country and plan to be citizens.

You've painted yourself into a corner, Greg.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.47  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.46    last year

Mmmkay,..

5.3.38

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.48  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @5.3.47    last year

Mmmkay, you want rights to extend to the unborn, who don't even exist and therefore can't be citizens, because they're future Americans (potentially), but not to immigrants, who do exist and are also future Americans (potentially).  And you honestly don't see the inconsistency in this position?

Mmmmkay is right.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
5.3.49  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.48    last year
Mmmkay, you want rights to extend to the unborn, who don't even exist

How do you define exist?

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.50  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.48    last year

Mmmmkay is right. If you can show where I've taken the position that you've painted, please do. I'm sorry you don't realize that future Americans are guaranteed the same rights that we "existing" Americans have.....

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.51  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.3.49    last year

All right, I misspoke.  Those who haven't even been conceived.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.52  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @5.3.50    last year
How do rights exist if their not applied equally to those that are there and those that aren't at the moment? Are your rights subjective to your situation?

Those were your words, discussing with Pat Wilson the rights of those who don't exist.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.53  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.52    last year

Indeed. Do you disagree that the rights of Americans are established before they are born?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.54  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @5.3.53    last year

I believe that which does not exist, by not existing, is unable to have rights.

If you want to endow "future Americans" with rights now, well, immigrants are potential future Americans, and actually do exist, and can therefore have rights.

Unless you didn't actually mean this:

How do rights exist if their not applied equally to those that are there and those that aren't at the moment? Are your rights subjective to your situation?

I mean, I certainly believe that rights are subject to our situations.  Don't you?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.3.55  JohnRussell  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.54    last year

People who dont exist cannot have rights. I'm surprised this twist on your discussion even got as far as it did. You might as well say that a human being that doesnt exist yet has a good sense of humor.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
5.3.56  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @5.3.55    last year

How do you define exist?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.57  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @5.3.55    last year
People who dont exist cannot have rights.

I agree.  But some people are so determined to deny women the right to bodily autonomy that they would grant personhood rights to eggs and sperm that don't even exist yet.  And they don't even see how ridiculous that is.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.3.58  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.3.56    last year

Didnt I ask you not to ask me pointless questions? 

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.59  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.54    last year
I mean, I certainly believe that rights are subject to our situations. Don't you?

No I don't. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.60  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @5.3.59    last year

Are you sure?  Being a non-citizen immigrant is a situation.  I'm pretty liberal regarding immigration, but I don't believe non-citizens have the same rights in the US as citizens.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.3.61  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.46    last year
granting Constitutional rights to people not yet conceived

They babies being aborted have already been conceived that is how they got into the mother in the first place. 

not to those who actually exist, but live in another country and plan to be citizens.

 Just because they want to be here but live in another country does not get them covered by the US Constitution. Planning to be a citizen of the US but not actually being here also is meaningless you also do know that those that have immigrated to this country are also covered by many parts of the Constitution. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.3.62  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.51    last year

If they have not been conceived then there is no fetus or person so abortion is not necessary and there is no entity to bestow rights to

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.3.63  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.60    last year

The biggest right that immigrants don't have is the right to vote. There maybe others but it it too late to research them now. But for them most part they have the same right at least legal immigrants do. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.64  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @5.3.62    last year
If they have not been conceived then there is no fetus or person so abortion is not necessary and there is no entity to bestow rights to

Finally, you've said something correct.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.3.65  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.64    last year

But after conception there is an entity or person that does get right bestowed upon. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.3.66  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.57    last year
they would grant personhood rights to eggs and sperm that don't even exist yet.  
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.67  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @5.3.61    last year
Just because they want to be here but live in another country does not get them covered by the US Constitution. Planning to be a citizen of the US but not actually being here also is meaningless

Agreed.  Now, tell that to your pals who think that all future Americans have Constitutional rights, regardless of their "situation".  Because immigrants are potential future Americans.  Indeed, they have much more potential to become Americans than the billions or trillions of unfertilized and/or nonexistent eggs and sperm to which some would grant "personhood" and Constitutional rights, because the vast majority of those will never reach fertilization, let alone be born.  Immigrants have already been born.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.68  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @5.3.65    last year

No, after birth.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.3.69  arkpdx  replied to  arkpdx @5.3.66    last year
they would grant personhood rights to eggs and sperm that don't even exist yet.  

Who are they? Everyone I know says that only after the two (egg and sperm) are combined (conception) do the resulting entity gain rights. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.70  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @5.3.69    last year

Please read the entire thread.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.3.71  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.67    last year
become Americans than the billions or trillions of unfertilized and/or nonexistent eggs and sperm to which some would grant "personhood" and Constitutional rights, because the vast majority of those will never reach fertilization, let alone be born

I know no one that would give Constitutional rights or personhood to any unfertilized or nonexistent eggs or sperm (if something is nonexistent how do you grant anything to it) all those I know will give personhood and Constitutional rights after conception an the egg and sperm merge. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.3.72  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.70    last year

I have. Not one person has wanted to give rights to an unfertilized egg or sperm. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.73  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @5.3.72    last year

Then the answers are literally upthread, and if you'd read the entire thread, you'd know that there are people here who would give Constitutional rights to nonexistent people.  It's all in black and white, but I'm not going to explain the whole thread to you.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.3.74  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.73    last year

Again I have read the whole thread and no one wants to give rights to nonexistent people. Give me one example. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.3.75  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @5.3.74    last year

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.3.76  devangelical  replied to  arkpdx @5.3.74    last year

too bad somebody else can't make your healthcare decisions ...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.77  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @5.3.31    last year

Like a Parasite or cancer. The comparisons are apt. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.78  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @5.3.72    last year

Why should nonexistent "people" get rights? Especially over the rights of actually existing people?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.79  author  Gordy327  replied to  Dig @5.3.28    last year

No worries about late replies. A busy schedule keeps me from responding in a timely or in depth manner. So I know how you feel.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.80  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.9    last year

How can non existent people have rights? Rights are conferred at birth. Is that not clear?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.81  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.80    last year
How can non existent people have rights? Rights are conferred at birth. Is that not clear?

How can a woman denied access to abortion claim a hardship that can only exist in the future?  The woman claiming hardship may not even be pregnant.  A woman might become pregnant and might want an abortion sometime in the future.  The, so called, right to choose abortion is being defended for pregnancies that do not exist. 

Why should a right to choose abortion be conferred upon women who are not pregnant?  And if the eligibility for that conferred right is pregnancy then why isn't regulating sexual activity a viable governmental activity?  Why can't government require a license to breed?  The government could require abortion for unlicensed pregnancies.

Are we discussing rights that are only given to the eligible?  Debating eligibility for intrinsic rights would open a whole other can of worms that edges closer to dark periods of human history.  If all rights are conferred (at any time and for any reason) then those rights are not inviolate and are not intrinsic to the human condition.  If the right to life is bestowed, by government, to those who are eligible then defending the right to life for future generations becomes nothing more than defending the government.  The right to life has been devalued and does nothing other than serve politics.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
5.3.82  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @5.3.58    last year

[]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.83  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.81    last year

 They shouldn't be denied access to abortion at all for any reason. But if a woman has limited resources or means, she's probably aware child bearing is not likely a good idea and will cause increased stress and drain on resources. The rest of your post makes no sense. If a woman becomes pregnant,  she can choose to have an abortion or not. It's not a difficult concept. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.84  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.83    last year
They shouldn't be denied access to abortion at all for any reason. But if a woman has limited resources or means, she's probably aware child bearing is not likely a good idea and will cause increased stress and drain on resources. The rest of your post makes no sense. If a woman becomes pregnant,  she can choose to have an abortion or not. It's not a difficult concept. 

You asked how rights can be conferred onto people who don't exist.  How is conferring rights to address a hardship that doesn't exist any different?  The claimed hardship cannot exist until the birth of a child.  And the birth of a child may not be a hardship at all.  So, you are claiming a right to address a non-existent hardship.

Why should rights for non-existent people be any different than rights for non-existent hardships?  According to the eligibility criteria you've put forward the individual life and the hardship both begin at birth.  And neither exist before birth according to your criteria.

The rights for future generations works the same way as the rights for future hardships.  Future generations is an abstraction until conception and the start of a pregnancy.  Future hardships is an abstraction until birth of a child.  Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?  In the case of abortion, life begins before there can be a hardship.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.85  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.3.43    last year

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.86  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.84    last year

Rights are legally codified and then conferred at birth. I'm not sure why you seem to having difficulty with that concept.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.87  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.86    last year

Actually, many rights are conferred long after birth. Voting, driving, drinking, having sex, ...

We see "birth" as an essential event. It can also be seen as "just another way point" in a creature's development.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.88  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.87    last year

Birth is the point where one is considered a legal person with rights. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.89  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.86    last year
Rights are legally codified and then conferred at birth. I'm not sure why you seem to having difficulty with that concept.

What is the logical argument for conferring rights at birth instead of at conception?

My position is that there are intrinsic rights that apply to people at all times.  Intrinsic rights are not conferred; intrinsic rights exist independently from the existence of individual people.  When a person comes into existence then intrinsic rights apply to that person.

You've flatly stated that a person only comes into existence at birth.  What is the logical argument that a person can only exist after birth?    

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.90  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.88    last year

True.

Why?

It appears to me to be a compromise among various religious criteria. Neither scientific nor logical.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.91  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.89    last year
What is the logical argument for conferring rights at birth instead of at conception?

Or at puberty?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.92  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.91    last year
Or at puberty?

Why not?  Puberty seems to be just as arbitrary a beginning for personhood as birth.

An infant is still attached to the woman after birth.  Why not claim personhood begins when the umbilical cord is cut?  That would allow abortion after birth.  The infant could be scrutinized and inspected before cutting the umbilical cord and aborted if it doesn't meet expectations.

What is the logical argument that a human fetus only becomes a person at birth?  And, consequently, why do intrinsic rights only apply after an arbitrary criteria for personhood is fulfilled?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.93  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.92    last year

There is NO such thing as a "moment of personhood".

There is an accretion of capacities, beginning at birth, leveling off after about 20 years, and declining late in life. Logically, society should define rights in step with capabilities.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.94  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.93    last year

Personhood is legally recognized at birth. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.95  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.90    last year

It's a legal thing.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.96  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.89    last year

The Constitution and Federal law affirms personhood and rights on birth. It is impossible to confer rights on the unborn without removing rights from the pregnant woman.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
5.3.97  pat wilson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.96    last year
removing rights from the pregnant woman.

That's precisely the goal of the right wing fundies.

They won't give two fux about the child once it arrives.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.3.98  Trout Giggles  replied to  pat wilson @5.3.97    last year

Well it's like we keep getting told around here...don't want to get pregnant don't spread your legs and if you end up pregnant after we told you not to spread your legs that's your problem, Girlie. Don't ask us for help

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.99  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.94    last year

Yes. My question is "why"? American law appears to me to be an amalgam of religious rules, with a very light dusting of science. The loudest preacher is gonna make the law. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.100  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.95    last year

Yes, but the law cannot be used to justify the law. That's kinda circular.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.101  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.99    last year

Wrong. American law is secular and not religious.  This is quite clear. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.102  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.100    last year

Take it up with the Constitution and Federal Code. How would one justify granting rights to the unborn without revoking rights from the pregnant woman? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.103  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.96    last year
The Constitution and Federal law affirms personhood and rights on birth. It is impossible to confer rights on the unborn without removing rights from the pregnant woman.

That's incorrect.  The Roe v. Wade decision cited British common law (which is essentially social convention before the Constitution was put in place).  And British common law didn't recognize or enumerate intrinsic rights.

Citing social conventions (or laws based on social conventions) doesn't provide a logical explanation for why personhood begins at birth rather than at conception.  There are examples in the history of the United States where intrinsic rights were denied based upon social conventions and not based on any logical explanation.  Citing social conventions (or laws based on social conventions) only repeats that history.

I have pointed out that the founding of the United States recognized and enumerated intrinsic rights for future generations.  My argument is that intrinsic rights are applicable when the future generation becomes physically present in our reality.  And there's no denying that the 'cluster of cells' that characterizes a pregnancy is the future generation physically present in our reality.

Your argument is that the future generation does not become present in physical reality until birth.  What is the logical explanation for that claim?  What is the logical explanation for why a 'cluster of cells' that characterizes a pregnancy is not the physical existence and presence of the future generation?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.104  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.93    last year
There is NO such thing as a "moment of personhood". There is an accretion of capacities, beginning at birth, leveling off after about 20 years, and declining late in life. Logically, society should define rights in step with capabilities.

A person either exists or does not exist.  There isn't a gray area for existence.  A person cannot partially exist.

Intrinsic rights are applicable for persons that exist.  The right to life is a recognized intrinsic right enumerated in the founding documents of the United States.  There isn't a gray area for the intrinsic right to life, either.  A person that exists either has an intrinsic right to life or doesn't.  

The argument being made is that a fetus exists but does not exist as a person until birth.  The argument being made is that a fetus does not have an intrinsic right to life because the fetus does not exist as a person.  There hasn't been a logical explanation for why the existence of the fetus is different than the existence of the person.

As you point out, a person undergoes many stages of development throughout their lifetime.  But does that development begin at conception or does that development begin at birth?  It's not difficult to understand that human life begins an conception.  What is the logical argument that human life before birth is not a person with an intrinsic right to life?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.105  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.101    last year

IMNAAHO, much of American law is based on religious tenets. Abortion law, of course. Also marital and other family relations... tax-exempt churches.

Now the crazy right wants crucifixes in courtrooms.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.106  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.102    last year

Is this really addressed to me?

    jrSmiley_43_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.107  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.103    last year

You can debate "fertilization or birth" ad infinitum without ever concluding, because neither is correct.

There is no "moment" of personhood. Personhood is acquired over time, from conception through to adulthood. Your current debate is without object

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.108  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.106    last year

Does it say it's in reply to anyone else?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.109  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.105    last year

Law is not based, nor should be, on religion, per the separation of church and state. Of course, that doesn't stop some from trying to push their religion into law.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.110  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.104    last year
A person either exists or does not exist. There isn't a gray area for existence. A person cannot partially exist.

I think this means that you and I have very different definitions of "person". IMNAAHO, a "person" must be self-aware... but a human newborn only becomes self-aware a few months after birth.

I have the impression that for you, "personhood" cannot be detailed. It is more or less magical.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.111  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.107    last year
There is no "moment" of personhood. Personhood is acquired over time, from conception through to adulthood. Your current debate is without object

I disagree because that would relegate personhood to a class distinction.  Such class distinctions are the basis for a caste system with unequal application of rights (both intrinsic and conferred).  That means someone can exist without being allowed to become a person; usually determined by social convention.  IMO that would be a dangerous conceptualization of personhood.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.112  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.110    last year
I think this means that you and I have very different definitions of "person". IMNAAHO, a "person" must be self-aware... but a human newborn only becomes self-aware a few months after birth. I have the impression that for you, "personhood" cannot be detailed. It is more or less magical.

At it's most basic, a person exists as a unique human individual.  A fetus begins experiencing its surroundings in the womb, collecting those experiences, and learning before birth.  That may be rudimentary at such an early stage of life but nevertheless the fetus recognizes its mother's voice after birth.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.113  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.90    last year

It's simply a legal determination,  starting with the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.114  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.112    last year

A fetus is not a legal or legally recognized person until birth. Therefore it is not yet granted nor has any rights, plain and simple.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.115  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.112    last year

In your view, can only humans be persons?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.116  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.113    last year

Does "person" have any meaning outside the law?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.117  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.116    last year

Not that I am aware of. But neither does it need any.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.118  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.114    last year
A fetus is not a legal or legally recognized person until birth. Therefore it is not yet granted nor has any rights, plain and simple.

Is that a logical conclusion or a social convention? 

If the right to choose abortion is based solely upon social convention then that, so called, right can either be granted or removed by social convention.  The only thing required to prohibit abortion is a law.  And that prohibition doesn't need to be any more logical than laws allowing abortion.  The only requirement would be citing social convention.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.119  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.115    last year
In your view, can only humans be persons?

We're discussing human rights and not discussing animal rights.  Since the arguments for human rights seem to hinge upon personhood then it follows that only humans can be persons in the context of that argument.  The question being argued is when humans become persons.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.120  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.117    last year

I'm going to have to think about this...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.121  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.120    last year

Take your time.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.122  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.119    last year
The question being argued is when humans become persons.

I'm trying to widen the discussion. Would an alien, arriving in an obviously very advanced space ship, be a person?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.3.123  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.122    last year

If intelligent exolife eventually is found to be a reality, I suspect we would amend our definition of person to include all intelligent sentient lifeforms (or something like that).   But as it stands, a person is defined as an individual human being.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.124  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.122    last year
I'm trying to widen the discussion. Would an alien, arriving in an obviously very advanced space ship, be a person?

An extraterrestrial alien would not be human and would not be considered a person within the context of human rights.

Would an alien be a person at conception or at birth?  Expanding human rights to include all sentient persons, including extraterrestrials, still requires a logical explanation for when personhood begins.  Even widening the discussion won't avoid the dilemma.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.125  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.3.123    last year

That's very convenient. For humans.

Perhaps when those aliens arrive, we'll have to use their definition of "person"... and we won't be covered.

"To Serve Man", by Damon Knight. Via the Twilight Zone.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.126  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.124    last year
... won't avoid the dilemma. 

No, it doesn't. My purpose is not to supply answers, but to ask questions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.3.128  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.125    last year
That's very convenient. For humans.

Makes sense that the only species that qualifies as 'person' is our own species since we consider ourselves the primary species on the planet.   We currently use the word 'person' to designate an individual human.   Maybe for convenience?    I suppose we could have invented a name for an individual goose, individual dog, etc.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.129  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @5.3.128    last year

Pretty sure we did...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.3.130  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @5.3.129    last year

Goose is an individual female (similar to woman), Gander is an individual male (similar to man), Gosling is an individual juvenile (similar to youth).   I do not think we have a term for an individual goose (independent of gender and age) akin to 'person'.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.3.131  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @5.3.130    last year
The term "goose" may refer to either a male or female bird, but when paired with "gander", refers specifically to a female one (the latter referring to a male). Young birds before fledging are called goslings.

Interesting, a word that is general till paired with another word.....

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.3.132  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.3.128    last year

We might some day need a word for "being superior to us". I think our perception of all living things would change.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.133  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.118    last year
Is that a logical conclusion or a social convention? 

A logical and legal one.

If the right to choose abortion is based solely upon social convention then that, so called, right can either be granted or removed by social convention.  The only thing required to prohibit abortion is a law.  And that prohibition doesn't need to be any more logical than laws allowing abortion.  The only requirement would be citing social convention.

The right to choose abortion is based on one's right of bodily autonomy. 

We're discussing human rights and not discussing animal rights.

Sometimes it seems like animals have more rights, especially compared to women. 

  Since the arguments for human rights seem to hinge upon personhood then it follows that only humans can be persons in the context of that argument.  The question being argued is when humans become persons.

Legal personhood begins at birth. This has been explained ad nauseum now. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.134  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.133    last year
The right to choose abortion is based on one's right of bodily autonomy. 

If bodily autonomy is a right then, as an example, mandated vaccination violates that right.  People have been punished for exercising their right of bodily autonomy to refuse vaccination.  The example of mandated vaccination demonstrates that the right to life (the basis for the mandate) supersedes the right of bodily autonomy.  

Legal personhood begins at birth. This has been explained ad nauseum now. 

That's not a logical or rational argument.  That's nothing more than a declaration without support.  Legal personhood at birth has not been established by codified law.  The SCOTUS decision for Roe v. Wade didn't cite codified laws as a basis for determining that personhood begins at birth.  The Roe v. Wade decision transformed social convention into an uncodified law.  And that social convention was based upon a religious tenet that the unborn are innocent and without sin.  So, your simple declaration is based upon a religious argument that was incorporated into uncodified law for expedience and is not a logical, rational secular argument.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.135  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.3.132    last year
We might some day need a word for "being superior to us". I think our perception of all living things would change.

We already have such words in our lexicon.  But saying any of those words causes secular apoplexy. 

Mankind has embraced the concept of superior beings for a very long time.  We even have institutions dedicated to superior beings.  Eradicating those institutions from public life has become a secular goal.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.136  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.134    last year
If bodily autonomy is a right then, as an example, mandated vaccination violates that right.  People have been punished for exercising their right of bodily autonomy to refuse vaccination.  The example of mandated vaccination demonstrates that the right to life (the basis for the mandate) supersedes the right of bodily autonomy.  

A flawed comparison. The government didn't mandate vaccines for the general populace. Only for federal workers as an employer, as did certain states or other businesses. Vaccination is also a public health issue, which can affect everyone. Abortion affects no one except maybe the pregnant woman and has no negative effect on society, unlike a pandemic. 

That's not a logical or rational argument.  That's nothing more than a declaration without support.  Legal personhood at birth has not been established by codified law. 

1 US Code, ss 8 and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. 

The SCOTUS decision for Roe v. Wade didn't cite codified laws as a basis for determining that personhood begins at birth. 

Roe wasn't decided on personhood. Roe is now voided anyway. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.137  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.136    last year
A flawed comparison. The government didn't mandate vaccines for the general populace. Only for federal workers as an employer, as did certain states or other businesses. Vaccination is also a public health issue, which can affect everyone. Abortion affects no one except maybe the pregnant woman and has no negative effect on society, unlike a pandemic. 

By that argument, even employer's rights supersedes the right of bodily autonomy.

Abortion has a very large adverse impact on future generations.  What's the point of protecting intrinsic rights for future generations when we refuse to protect the future generation, itself?

1 US Code, ss 8 and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Don't ignore 1 US Code ss 8 (c).  The unborn are not excluded from personhood.   Citing the 14th Amendment suggests that only citizens are persons under US law.  And citizenship can be conferred by a mechanism other than birth; birth is not the only mechanism to confer rights to citizens.

Roe wasn't decided on personhood. Roe is now voided anyway. 

Roe v. Wade was voided on Constitutional grounds.  On the other hand, the Roe v. Wade decision, itself, was not based upon Constitutional grounds or codified law; Roe v. Wade was based upon social convention associated with religious tenets.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.138  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.137    last year
By that argument, even employer's rights supersedes the right of bodily autonomy.

An employer can set the rules of their business. No one is being forced to work for a particular employer. 

Abortion has a very large adverse impact on future generations. 

Such as? Be specific!

What's the point of protecting intrinsic rights for future generations when we refuse to protect the future generation, itself?

Irrelevant and just a "what if" type argument at best. Rights are enumerated regardless. 

Don't ignore 1 US Code ss 8 (c).  The unborn are not excluded from personhood. 

I didn't. Why do you think I cited it? And yes, the unborn are not persons. Section C of 1 US Code confirms that:

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

Citing the 14th Amendment suggests that only citizens are persons under US law.  And citizenship can be conferred by a mechanism other than birth; birth is not the only mechanism to confer rights to citizens.

That is correct and the other mechanism for citizenship is naturalization through due process. 

Roe v. Wade was voided on Constitutional grounds.  On the other hand, the Roe v. Wade decision, itself, was not based upon Constitutional grounds or codified law; Roe v. Wade was based upon social convention associated with religious tenets.

Roe is now a non-issue. Not sure why you keep trying to bring it up? 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.3.139  devangelical  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.137    last year

the abortion issue is going to cripple either the republican party or radical xtianity. pick one and then learn to live with it.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.3.140  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.138    last year

they wore out their tried and true wedge issue. oh well, back to xenophobia...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.3.141  JBB  replied to  devangelical @5.3.140    last year

original

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.142  author  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @5.3.140    last year

I suppose they always need a backup? 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.3.143  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @5.3.142    last year

just a different hand stuffing the same pocket with money from the same accounts...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Dig @5    last year

I'm a little bit surprised that the question in the headline was phrased the way that it was. Being anti-abortion is not illogical. As I said though, it is the individual woman's choice. In my perfect world there wouldnt be any abortions, but it is not my call. 

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.4.1  Dig  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4    last year

The title was the only reason I even responded.

The idea that there can be no logical or rational argument against abortion is neither logical nor rational, and is more along the lines of what closed-minded ideologues might think.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.4.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4    last year
Being anti-abortion is not illogical.

It's the arguments against abortion that tend to be illogical.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
5.5  TTGA  replied to  Dig @5    last year
When two gametes combine, each contributing the half-genome they bring from each parent, and a zygote is formed, you have the very first complete cell of a new human individual. 

This is correct.  The scientific definition of a human being is an organism whose cells match those of the human genome.  A fetus has cells that are not duplicates of either parent and those cells match the human genome.  It is not part of the mother's body.  It is a separate organism. Back in 1973, when Roe v Wade was decided, the human genome had not been charted, so they used viability as a measure.  That is now unnecessary.

The question then becomes, when are you permitted to use deadly force against (kill) another human being?  The answer to that question is obvious to any police officer, or, for that matter, to anyone who has been through the course required to carry a concealed weapon.  You may use deadly force against another human being in order to protect yourself or another innocent person from death or great bodily injury.  You are not permitted to kill another human to enhance your convenience or to repair a mistake that you made.  Killing for those reasons is considered murder.