╌>

A rational argument for no restrictions on abortion

  
By:  Gordy327  •  last year  •  91 comments


A rational argument for no restrictions on abortion
 

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

Religious and not News Chat

Since the Dobbs decision, some states gave set various and seemingly arbitrary restrictions on abortion, such as at 6, 15, and 20 weeks gestation. There seems to be no rational rhyme or reason for such restrictions. Many who do advocate for restrictions or prohibiting abortion seem to do so based on emotion or feelings. However, there is no rational or logical reason to restrict abortion at all. Briefly, here's why:

1. Women have bodily autonomy and can choose what they want to do with their bodies or in matters of health. This includes abortion.

2. A zygote, embryo, or fetus (ZEF) is not a legal person and therefore has no legal rights or protections. But a pregnant woman is a person with rights. Therefore, hers is paramount.

3. No one can be compelled to have their body used for the benefit of another without consent. This is established legal precedent.

4. Pregnancy & birth can have negative (but not limited to) physical effects. While most states have some kind of exceptions in place for abortion, this can also be a case of preventative medicine before issues arise.

5. the pregnant woman is able to make the decision based on what her medical and life circumstances are.

As a side note, Canada has no laws restricting abortion, as it is deemed an issue between a woman and her doctor and Canada's abortion rate is less than the US. 


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1  Greg Jones    last year

Your argument is more emotional than rational or logical. I have no problem with abortion done as early as possible in the cases of rape, incest, or for health reasons for the mother or a problem with the growing fetus.

It makes no logical sense to have an abortion after the first trimester except the reasons given above. Once the period of viability has been reached, abortion should not be legal except in an emergency situation regarding the mothers health.

Many things in real human life are neither logical nor rational when it comes to feelings, emotions, and beliefs.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @1    last year
Your argument is more emotional than rational or logical.

Not even a little. 

I have no problem with abortion done as early as possible in the cases of rape, incest, or for health reasons for the mother or a problem with the growing fetus.

That's nice. I have no problem with abortion at all regardless of the reason. It's the woman's choice and her body.

It makes no logical sense to have an abortion after the first trimester except the reasons given above. Once the period of viability has been reached, abortion should not be legal except in an emergency situation regarding the mothers health.

Provide a rational reason why abortion should be restricted or prohibited after the 1st trimester! Or perhaps address the points made, each of which are based on law or medicine (as opposed to "emotion"), before making an absurd declaration like me being emotional.

Many things in real human life are neither logical nor rational when it comes to feelings, emotions, and beliefs.

True. And most anti-abortion arguments are based on feelings or emotion in general. That's the problem. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1    last year

I'm waiting for the trump bullshit claim that babies can be killed after they're born... fucking morons...

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1    last year
 I have no problem with abortion at all regardless of the reason

So you have no problem with abortion even a week before birth. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.3  devangelical  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.2    last year

not if the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is found to be not viable after birth.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.2    last year
So you have no problem with abortion even a week before birth. 

No! But then, no physician would perform an abortion at that point. So the idea (or fear) of abortions being performed then is just hyperbolic nonsense.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @1.1.1    last year
I'm waiting for the trump bullshit claim that babies can be killed after they're born... fucking morons

Some really do seem to think that. Go figure. Some do not seem to understand that once birth occurs, abortion becomes a moot point.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.5    last year

I actually had some trumpster bimbo tell me that trump made the obama abortion illegal, the one for birth parents to decide up to 3 months after birth if they wanted the baby killed. I shit you not. I had to play along since she was my ride share driver. 1 star ride.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @1.1.6    last year

More like 0-star ride.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.8  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.7    last year

I held my tongue, since I didn't feel like being left on the side of the highway in bufu texas. I let loose on the comment after the 1 star rating. drivers can be suspended for discussing politics or religion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.9  author  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @1.1.8    last year

That's a good way of dealing with the issue. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.1.10  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @1.1.8    last year

[]

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.1.11  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.2    last year
So you have no problem with abortion even a week before birth.

Does a person have the right to quit their job when they want to?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.4    last year
no physician would perform an abortion at that point.

Thank-you. There are ethical and moral issues that become important at this point (a week before due date)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @1.1.6    last year

OMG...I think I would have taken my chances in bumfauck TX. I would have unleashed a mountain of scorn on that uneducated, backwoods, idiotic MORON!

She's claiming that Obama legalized infanticide! What kind of alternate reality did she escape from?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.14  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.13    last year
What kind of alternate reality did she escape from?

she was a trumpster moron...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.15  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.1.14    last year

... which proves just how ignorant the majority of them are.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.16  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.1.15    last year

there's only 2 fast food chains that would probably allow proselytizing at the drive up window now...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @1    last year
Your argument is more emotional than rational or logical.

It is where most democrats now stand. It is too bad that Republicans can't communicate that simple fact to the American public.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    last year
It is where most democrats now stand. It is too bad that Republicans can't communicate that simple fact to the American public.

Your sweeping generalization aside, can Republicans, or anyone for that matter, provide an unemotional reason why abortion should be restricted or even prohibited?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.1    last year

[]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    last year

Why? No on one, especially anti-choicers, seem able to address the points made and/or explain why abortion should be restricted, especially without resorting to or getting emotional. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.2.4  George  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.3    last year

[]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  George @1.2.4    last year

I see you have nothing of real value to offer. Thanks anyway 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.3    last year
Why?

So the voting public knows the positions of both sides.


No on one, especially anti-choicers, seem able to address the points made and/or explain why abortion should be restricted, especially without resorting to or getting emotional. 

I'm not really interested in a moral argument. I have always believed the people should vote on it.  I'm fine with whatever kind of society the American people want. The issue for me is one step below the issue of the drinking age.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.2.7  George  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.5    last year

So it's not good enough to agree with you? it has to be for the same exact reasons? That is very closed minded. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.8  author  Gordy327  replied to  George @1.2.7    last year

Agree with what? I never said anything about killing children. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.2.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.8    last year

Exactly, fetus or baby, just semantics. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.10  author  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.6    last year

Given that abortion has been an issue for 50 years, it's safe to say people know and argue both sides of the debate. What some cannot seem to rationally argue is why abortion should be restricted. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.11  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.9    last year

No, a fetus is not yet a baby/child. Not semantics, but scientific terminology and definition. Legally, a fetus is not a person either.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.2.12  George  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.9    last year

It's not like there is a difference, the end result is the same. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.2.13  charger 383  replied to  George @1.2.4    last year

Who in their right mind would want somebody to reproduce when they are unwilling or unable  to properly care for their own children or just don't want them?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.14  author  Gordy327  replied to  George @1.2.12    last year

It's different until the end is reached. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.6    last year
I'm fine with whatever kind of society the American people want.

No you're not especially if the American people go the complete opposite of what you want

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.2.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  George @1.2.12    last year

Don't most states allow wrongful death suites for the death of unborn children?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.17  Tacos!  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.16    last year

This varies by jurisdiction. Some states allow it. Others don’t. For those that do, it can be dependent upon the term of pregnancy or viability. Even where you can’t sue for wrongful death, you likely can sue for physical injury to the woman, emotional distress, or whatever other tort resulted in the loss.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.18  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.16    last year
death suites

huh?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.19  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.2.18    last year

... would that be a shipping crate? or maybe a refrigerator box?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2  devangelical    last year

... as the republicans chant endlessly for less government power, make laws to restrict government interference in medical choices during the pandemic and afterwards, and make restrictive laws that affect the LGBTQ community and parent's rights to deal with their own children's health issues. stfu and mind your own business, brainless thumpers...

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @2    last year
government interference in medical choices during the pandemic  

You  mean those medical choices that liberals insisted on (wearing masks, getting vaccinated social" distancing) that were found to be of little to no consequence?

parent's rights to deal with their own children's health issues. 

Are those issues where a school can encourage and facilitate the mutilation of their child by not telling the parents of gender issues or getting an abortion for an under age girl without parental notification 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @2.1    last year
You  mean those medical choices that liberals insisted on (wearing masks, getting vaccinated social" distancing) that were found to be of little to no consequence?

Those choices affected public health. Abortion does not. Neither does it have any negative impact on society. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.2  devangelical  replied to  arkpdx @2.1    last year

no, I meant how republicans wanted the right to bodily autonomy in health choices during the pandemic, and then denying that same right to women and the LGBTQ community afterwards with some state's legislation.

you need to provide data on the number of all abortions versus those that are performed on a healthy fetus in the last few days of gestation to be taken seriously here any further.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.3  George  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.1    last year
Neither does it have any negative impact on society.

That is complete and utter bullshit. You have no idea what contributions to society may have been made by the people murdered out of convenience. Science my ass! that comment is pure emotion.

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

Explain precisely how society is negatively affected by society! Not a 'what if.' 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.5  George  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.4    last year

Sigh.....Do you understand math? and the basics behind probability? There have been roughly 63 million abortions performed in the US alone since Roe. That doesn't count the other millions upon millions world wide, What are the probability that at least one of those murdered potential humans would have had a positive impact on society? Only an ignorant fool would deny that the possibility not only exists, but is highly likely. Pro-Deathers can deny all they want, but math isn't emotional.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.6  author  Gordy327  replied to  George @2.1.5    last year

Still a 'what if' argument. Using your 'logic' I can easily say if those individuals were born, they may have had a negative impact on society. Therefore its better they were aborted. Its a flawed argument.

Provide something tangible relating to abortion having a negative impact on society.  Not mere speculation. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1.7  charger 383  replied to  George @2.1.5    last year

Figure it both ways, average it out and result will be neutral.  What is not wanted but forced on you will likely not be properly cared for and will not achieve best results

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.8  George  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.6    last year

If your comments are going to be intellectually dishonest there is no point. Math doesn’t care about your feelings.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.9  George  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.7    last year

First of all, I’m for allowing people make their own choices. I’m just not going to sugarcoat what is actually happening.

It is also speculation that they will remain unwanted, also there are multitudes of families looking for babies to adopt.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.10  author  Gordy327  replied to  George @2.1.8    last year

I'm not the one being intellectually dishonest here. Just because we know how many abortions have been performed is no indicator of how society might have been affected if those abortions were not allowed. You haven't provided anything objective to show that abortion negatively affects society. All you have is mere conjecture at best. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.11  author  Gordy327  replied to  George @2.1.9    last year

There are plenty of children waiting to be adopted or in foster homes. It doesn't make sense to potentially add to those numbers by restricting abortion.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.12  George  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.10    last year

You lack honesty in your comments, we are done. Prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist with conclusive non disputable proof and then come back.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1.13  charger 383  replied to  George @2.1.9    last year
First of all, I’m for allowing people make their own choices. I’m just not going to sugarcoat what is actually happening.

Then I think we agree?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.14  George  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.11    last year

Yes there are. And again to those who refuse to read or understand what I actually write.

I have no problem with people choosing to kill their unborn children, I’m just not going to sugarcoat what is actually happening, a human life is extinguished. Period! You can justify it using whatever terms you choose. Fetus, lump of cells etc. I have even seen retarded fools call them parasites, which illustrates a complete lack of intelligence when it comes to biology. But it is a human life that is extinguished, it can’t be anything else.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.15  author  Gordy327  replied to  George @2.1.14    last year

No one is arguing its a human ZEF or not. That's not the point nor is it relevant. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.16  author  Gordy327  replied to  George @2.1.12    last year

Your dodge and logical fallacy is noted! Talk about a lack of intellectual  honesty indeed.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
2.1.17  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  George @2.1.9    last year

And no one is responsible to provide those families with babies to adopt.  There are plenty of CHILDREN already out there to adopt. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1.18  charger 383  replied to  George @2.1.14    last year
I’m just not going to sugarcoat what is actually happening

You don't have to sugarcoat coat it, just let people handle their own business and do what is best for their situation at the time

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.19  Trout Giggles  replied to  George @2.1.14    last year

Until you carry a life around for nine months, taking your O2, your food intake, causing back aches, swelling ankles, heartburn, constipation, diarrhea, hemmorhoids and NAUSEA.....I'm going to call it parasite. Calling me a retarded fool will get you nothing not even a cold cup of coffee

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.20  author  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.19    last year

When one looks at it objectively, a ZEF acts quite similar to a parasite or even a tumor. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.21  George  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.19    last year
I'm going to call it parasite.

Sigh......

an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense:

If you would have used democrat a different kind of "a pseudo parasite", only they are allegedly the same species. i would have agreed with you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.22  author  Gordy327  replied to  George @2.1.21    last year

A ZEF benefits by deriving nutrients and oxygen from the woman (host) at her expense and can potentially cause harm, much like a parasite. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.22    last year

Exactly, isn't biology a bitch.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.24  Trout Giggles  replied to  George @2.1.21    last year

Like I said I will call it what I want since I'm the one who's taking all the grief until the monster decides it wants out

If you would have used democrat a different kind of "a pseudo parasite",

what is your problem? I could have said the same thing about republicans but I don't see all republicans like you do all democrats.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.25  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.22    last year

And they do. Any woman who's had pre-eclampsia will tell you that. And that's not a medical condition you get unless you are carrying a "parasite"

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.26  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.23    last year

Yep, it sure is. That's why preventative medicine is important, such as an abortion before problems occur.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.27  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.26    last year

To be honest, if I had had pre-eclampsia with either of my beasties I would want treatment instead of an abortion. But of course, I was ready for to have beasties so both of my pregnancies were welcome and joyous...except for all that heartburn, nausea, swelling ankles.....

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.28  author  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.27    last year

I always say the ultimate choice belongs to the woman. Only she can decide what's best for herself.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.29  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.28    last year

it's nobody's business but the woman and her healthcare provider.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.30  author  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @2.1.29    last year

Exactly! As it should be! Just like any other medical or Healthcare decision. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.31  Ender  replied to  devangelical @2.1.29    last year

Yep. Private medical decisions no one should have any say about or even know about.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.32  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @2.1.29    last year

[]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.33  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.26    last year

So you would agree that it would be ok for someone in colder regions to have their fingers and toes removed because they might get frostbite in them someday.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.34  author  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.33    last year

Amputation might be indicated once severe frostbite sets in lest gangrene develops. But that's up to the individual themselves, much like abortion is up to the woman to decide. 

Is that kind of "argument" the best you can do? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3  Tacos!    last year

If the matter were this simple, we likely would have resolved it long ago.

1. Like all basic rights, bodily autonomy is not unlimited, though we might wish it to be. It is subject to regulations. Consider all our drug laws as an easy example.

2. You’re talking about the current state of the law, not an observable fact of nature. Rights vary by jurisdiction and time. Our Supreme Court has recognized that states have an interest in protecting the unborn. Roe v Wade sought to balance that interest against the rights of a woman. Though the ultimate holding in that case was recently overturned, the Court did not say that the state’s interest does not exist.

3. Are you presuming here that a fetus is trying to compel its mother? I don’t think that can be said. A fetus clearly lacks the capacity. Offspring - born or unborn - are generally considered a responsibility because the adult in the relationship is presumed to have taken on pregnancy by choice. I think that’s why situations of rape are so widely accepted as exceptions.

4. This is a sufficient reason for abortion, but it does not preclude regulation or limitations.

5. While I support this, I observe the same things I saw in 4.

I understand how tempting it is to assume our point of view is the only rational conclusion, but there are reasonable concerns about abortion. You don’t need to go to the pro-life side to see this. Just listen to all the women who were faced with abortion as a choice and considered it a difficult decision.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @3    last year

1. Drug laws and penalties largely pertain to possession.

2. Neither the SCOTUS or the states have clarified or codified what "state interest" actually is or why it's an interest. Especially in regards to o es own autonomy and medical decision which has no effect on the state or society in general.

3. A fetus is merely feeding off the woman for its benefit like a parasite. But it is not a legal person and no one is required to have their bodies used against their will for the benefit of another.

4. What rational reason is there for limitations?

5. Who else but the woman herself can determine the best choice for her? 

No one is saying abortion is not a difficult decision. But that decision belongs to the woman and is no one else's business or concern.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1    last year
2. Neither the SCOTUS or the states have clarified or codified what "state interest" actually is or why it's an interest.

They have discussed it at length in Roe and other opinions. It’s not much of a mystery. Governments across the world have assumed an interest in protecting prenatal life for centuries.

The third reason is the State's interest -- some phrase it in terms of duty -- in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. [ Footnote 45 ] The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.

Even the most liberal US states regulate abortion.

No one is saying abortion is not a difficult decision.

Then you’re trying to have it two ways. You can’t describe it as this thing that is so obvious and easy - absolute body autonomy, fetus has no value or rights - and still acknowledge that it’s a difficult decision. If the stakes are so low, or non-existent, then why in the world would it ever be a difficult decision?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.1    last year

we had an acceptable compromise for 50 years, but apparently that wasn't good enough for some of the religious extremists...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @3.1.2    last year

There’s no pleasing those people.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.3    last year

it's a mental disorder.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4  charger 383    last year

The wishes and convivence of the woman is the most important reason.  Overpopulation and reducing generational poverty are also very important.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5  Bob Nelson    last year

Thou shalt not murder.

So... what exactly is a murder? Wikipedia says "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought."

So... if it's lawful, it's not murder... Just write the law however needed. ... Not much help. Let's forget about it.

What is the morally right thing?

Don’t kill. We're even feeling uncomfortable killing animals. So certainly: DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. But then, what is a person? (The answer isn't in the law - we dropped that right away.) Of course, if we don't kill anything at all, the problem is solved... and this may well apply in a few generations. Right now, I like steak.

IMNAAHO, self-awareness is the essential. The mirror test. This is a pretty high bar. There aren't many species that pass. Further restrictions can be applied if desired... and they will be, gradually, until we decide against killing anything more sophisticated than bacteria. Not soon!

For now, "people" are humans, great apes, cetaceans... and that's about it. Maybe octopuses? These animals are not necessarily "people" at birth. A human baby fails the mirror test. I don't know about the other species.

If a human Isn’t a person at birth, then killing a newborn isn't murder. Many societies have recognized personhood some time after birth: walking or talking for example.

But! The idea of killing a baby is abhorrent. In fact, human brains turn to mush at the sight of any newborn, regardless of species. Human babies are helpless - far, far, far from viable. So human adults have an inborn urge to care for babies. (Hey! Evolution at work!)

IMNAAHO, it is our urge to care for babies that defines the abortion debate.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5    last year

Before birth, there is no legal person and abortion in not legally defined as or equated to murder. At birth, there is a person with legal recognition and rights. Therefore the intentional killing of the individual is murder. It's that simple. People simply complicate matters with emotion and/or ignorance. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1    last year

science is beyond their mental grasp...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1    last year

It seems simple to me. Abortion is about people's perception of newborn critters of all species.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.2    last year

the forced birth morons have no skin in the game besides religious dogma.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.1.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  devangelical @5.1.3    last year

Exactly 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.2    last year

People often perceive things quite differently. Especially given that abortion is not about newborns. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.5    last year

But they try desperately to make it about newborns

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.6    last year

I have noticed. It's all emotionally and irrationally driven.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6  mocowgirl    last year

The controlling men trying to rule the world, but having to settle for ruling women are public enemy #1 when a person considers the negative impacts their "rules" have on the lives of women and US society.

The Connection Between Mental Health and Abortion Rights | Psychology Today

The landmark case of Roe v. Wade constitutionally secured a woman’s right to choose. However, "the leak heard 'round the world," revealed that the Supreme Court is likely to overrule Roe’s authority despite precedent since 1973. The loss of control over one’s body regarding reproductive freedom may trigger individuals to experience feelings of   depression ,   anxiety , post- traumatic   stress   disorder ( PTSD ), ideation, and   suicidality , amongst other potentially disabling mental health disorders.

Threats to physical and mental health and well-being

The American Psychological Association (APA) cites decades of research demonstrating the harm to females’ mental health if abortion is outlawed. Argues APA President Frank C. Worrell, “Rigorous, long-term psychological research demonstrates clearly that people who are denied abortions are more likely to experience higher levels of anxiety, lower life satisfaction, and lower   self-esteem   compared with those who are able to obtain abortions.”

Worrell also concluded that overruling Roe and making access to abortions more difficult could prove potentially lethal for females, given the realm of domestic abuse: “There is a strong relationship between unwanted   pregnancy   and interpersonal violence. Specifically, psychological science suggests that the inability to obtain an abortion increases the risk for domestic abuse among those who are forced to stay in contact with violent partners, putting them and their children at risk.”

and I'll add this little bit of info I received in my Forbes email today.  The SBC has initially voted to restrict women's authority in their organization while at the same time protecting their male members' sexual abuse of women.  Sexual abuse that can result in pregnancy, a woman forced to give birth to their predator's child, and then either share custody with their predator or even relinquish custody to their predator.  Isn't that all just peachy keen.....for the predators and their supporters.

Southern Baptists Approve Stricter Ban On Female Pastors (forbes.com)

The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant Christian denomination in the U.S. and widely considered a bellwether for evangelism in the nation, preliminarily voted Wednesday to more explicitly bar women from serving as pastors within its churches.

Thousands of delegates representing SBC churches throughout the country voted Wednesday to amend its constitution to specify that a church can only be Southern Baptist if it “affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder,” during the SBC’s annual meeting in New Orleans this week.

To become final, this amendment will require another vote in favor at the SBC’s next annual meeting, per the   organization’s constitution . The SBC was rocked by scandal in 2022 when the  Houston Chronicle  revealed a previously secret list of hundreds of pastors and church personnel that had been accused of sexual abuse. Those allegations had been suppressed by the SBC. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently launched an investigation and the SBC has promised it will fully cooperate.

 
 

Who is online


36 visitors