Is there a logical or rational argument against abortion?
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
Who is online
111 visitors
Thoughts?
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.
I'm pretty sure all 3 of my kids are mine...
[deleted]
An unbelievable comment that has no place here. Grow up.
dammit, I missed it...
[deleted]
Do you have an argument to make or are you just trolling?
thumping...
Same difference. Still neither logical nor rational.
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.
I doubt they care.
they still think god is on their side and the only ones that are forgiven.
He is and they are. Enough said.
If abortion is a sin, let God deal with it if he ever holds a judgement day, until then let women have freewill
wrong again...
NOPE! I am absolutely 100% correct. You however could not be more wrong.
That's nice. Prove it!
what does it say about xtians that always feel the need to intercede for their omnipotent god?
maybe he will show himself one day
I'm not holding my breath.
maybe he's the owner of an intergalactic meat packing plant and earth is his feedlot.
Proved God is not on their side and prove they are not forgiven.
Prove God exists.
I don't know what it says. And what is a "xtian"?
Xitan is intolerant bigot for Christian
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?
LOL
I don't need to. I believe He does and have faith that I am right.
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?
Yeah the cliche (and absurd) ... I believe I am right therefore I am 100% right.
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.
Can you conclusively prove that God does not exist?
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.
It is impossible to "prove" a negative...
That is not true. These are your words. Do you not remember what YOU typed?
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.
This has been explained over and over. Some folks either will not or cannot grasp the concept.
... and they wonder why organized religion is in a cultural nosedive.
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.
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'.
... will not ...
(stubbornly)
IMO
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.
You affirmed the claim God is on their side. So the burden of proof is on you. Enough said!
Beliefs do not equal fact!
Some prefer willful ignorance and keeping their head buried in the sand.
I call them phonier than thou small c 'christians'
So where in that quote is the word proven. I seem to have missed it.
There maybe. I personally don't care what you believe.
That is because God is on their side.
I could say the same to you. Just because one says there is no God does not make it fact.
Show me where Gordy stated that there is no god.
“…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.
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?
That's nice. Prove it!
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).
Who is saying "there is no god?" There is simply no evidence for a god.
Wrote a sci-fi novel along those lines once.
Sorry, can't divulge the title. Won't out myself.
When ever I see such a line I immediately think back to that wonderful Twilight Zone episode....
thrumping/throlling
Gotta love the classics.
don't you hate it when your comments vanish...
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.
some film maker really needs to cash in on all the anti-religion sentiment in this country.
Maybe they would be considered "organic?" 🤔
Yes, yes I do.
[Deleted]
Taunting is definitely a CoC violation.
crusader mentality.
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.
Exactly.
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.
I have regularly noticed the same trend or style of argument.
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.
As do I.
I fail to see it. Belief itself is subjective and not shared by everyone. I prefer more objectivity myself.
You, and I, may not agree with them, but the logic for their position is as briefly mentioned by John in his comment above.
I do not see any logical or rational reason to prohibit abortion
Neither do I. Hence, the inquiry of the article.
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.
I have said before that viability was a reasonable compromise.
I cannot think of one either and the religious argument should be irrelevant in regards to our secular laws.
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.
Never is and always the defense of the indefensible . . .
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.
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.
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.
Yes, but it is the gestational time that is the focus.
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.
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?
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.
So? Laws aren't applied equally to children and adults anyway.
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?
Maybe it shouldn't be. I mean, if we want to be logical, rational, and science-minded.
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?
That is just not medical reality. Pregnancy is always a state of heightened health risk for the mother.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Emotional appeal. "Innocent" of what exactly?
No!
Pregnancy and birth is always a danger to the woman. Abortion is far safer, easier, and cheaper.
Since the issue is about abortion, then gestation is the only time that matters. At birth, abortion becomes a moot point.
It's not yet a person.
So? There are plenty of others who engage in discussions like this one. But us being here was by the choice of our mothers.
That's for the pregnant woman to decide.
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.
I suspect very few laws are written by biologists.
The only thing taken away would be the right to kill it for no medical reason.
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.
What point are you trying to make here? That every pregnancy should be aborted because there's always a risk to women?
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.
But why should that be? Ending a pregnancy is ending a life. Do you acknowledge that or not?
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (2004) says otherwise.
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".
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.
Yes
Who is doing the carrying? Do you have the right to force another person to do unpaid work aginst their will?
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.
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'
Not at all. It only provides limited retribution depending on where the crime was committed and who was involved.
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.
Woman Denied Emergency Abortion in Ohio Filled Diapers With Blood, Almost Died (yahoo.com)
Oklahoma woman with non-viable pregnancy told to wait in parking lot ‘until you bleed out’ due to abortion ban (yahoo.com)
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.
I 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.
That does not establish or enumerate rights for the unborn.
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.
fetus does not count, it is inside of and pugged in to someone else.
The fetus's life has not begun yet
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?
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?
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.
Wow. Nice strawman.
We're talking about ending a human life.
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
The Bible says different in several places
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 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.
You posted a ridiculous comparison.
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.
I wouldn't know. I'm an atheist.
What difference is an old book of mythology supposed to make anyway?
When does the Census count you as a person?
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.
just a little quick research
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..."
The day after birth, there is still only potential. Without constant care, human babies are not viable.
We are marsupials without pouches.
So you never leave your house and in fact never leave your bed. Even those activities involve risk.
I am curious - how hard did you have to try to come to such a spectacularly incorrect conclusion?
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.
I see you either did not read, or did not understand, when I said:
Which narrative would you like to go with?
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.
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.
"Innocent" of what, exactly? "Innocense" seems to be one of the more common appeals to emotion in the anti abortion argument.
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?
Innocent of any wrong doing. Just what has a baby in utero done to deserve a death sentence?
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.
You're the one re-hashing and arguing for the sake of arguing here.
If she didn't want her body used that way she should have thought of that before she took the actions that conceived it.
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 - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
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
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.
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?
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.
You want to take the fun out of things
That is what I am told a man should do if he does not want to be a father, abstain from sex.
I'm not going live that way But those against choice should
Too bad! It's her body, so she can do what she wants with it.
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.
No state criminalizes the woman for having an abortion. Only against those who perform one.
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.
Abortion helps negate the risk of pregnancy and childbirth.
Completely unrealistic. As a man, you also have no say in what a woman chooses to do with her body.
Why should she? Abortion is a sure way to prevent remaining pregnant. Safer, easier, and cheaper than pregnancy and childbirth too.
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.
If all women stop having sex because they don't want to get pregnant...what are the men going to do?
What men do in prison, screw each other...
I see a large market opening up for blow-up dolls
Be realistic.
I would really like an answer to this question from the anti-choicers
Wait I will just add it to the bottom
Hand exercises 😉
Actually, yes it is just a cell. A single, undifferentiated cell which is less specialized than any other cell in the body.
They're written by politicians who seem to have very little knowledge of biology.
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.
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.
Trespassing if not wanted. Possible risk of harm against the woman. Using her body against her will if she does not consent.
That's for the woman herself to decide.
"Human life" is a biological determination. Not a legal one.
It's her body being used and her life being affected. That's why!
Yes, and so what?
Yes! The real question is, would a doctor agree to perform the procedure?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody is advocating for that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Viability is a reasonable compromise.
Impossible.
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.
Define "nearly." Any law cannot be ambiguous like that.
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.
It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that abortions are being elected to be performed 'up to or during birth'
THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN
They absolutely are.
Yeah. I already acknowledged that above, but you knew that when you replied.
Huh? You're arguing against points I haven't made.
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?
The laws that Republicans have been hurriedly passing in various states absolutely need work.
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.
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.
Your concerns were prescient.
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.
Unfortunately this time, yes.
Actually it does happen, but very rarely as I stated before. See pretty good resource HERE :
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.
Nor yours
No need for me to check out your source. My comment stands. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN ELECTIVELY UP TO AND DURING BIRTH.
For emphasis!
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.
Indeed.
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.
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!
I agree completely.
Just making sure.
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.
Because the woman's life, choices, and autonomy must also be considered and respected.
Need work? They should be repealed asap.
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?
That is not the meaning of the word 'viable' / 'viability' in this context:
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.
NO, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN
I heard the former 'president' promoting that ignorant bullshit - he included after birth as well - how does that work? Sounds like murder to me.
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.
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.
Semantics, shemantics. Miscarriages are abortions, just naturally occurring ones that people generally aren't at fault for.
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.
Excepting for the active intervention part.
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.
Do they have the same rights of personhood before they pop out ?
Whose rights prevail, the woman's or the fetus's ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A zygote is not yet an individual person.
Future generations have that when they're born.
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.
Ludicrous.
Don't you mean up to the point of viability? Since a cesarian birth will produce a living child?
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.
Driving a car or drinking beer are not rights. The right to vote is conferred on every American long before they're born.
So.... babies can vote??
Uhh no..
How do you confer rights to a person who doesn't exist ?
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
If the right to vote is conferred before birth, then why not?
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.
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
Nope, I said at birth. If a c-section is performed, that is still considered a birth.
Ok, and your point being...? No rights are conferred until birth anyway.
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.
Which exists for "We the People", you know living, breathing, extant people.
So you don't think that those rights extend to future Americans?
Future Americans do not yet exist so no.
But do those rights?....
Not where at-will, no-questions-asked abortions are legal.
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.
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.
Rights for what ? A dream ? A plan ? A wish ?
How do rights exist for something that does not ?
So now you are trying to compare an unborn baby to a parasite like a tapeworm or a liver fluke?
Biologically, it IS a parasite, by the definition of parasite. Your feelings don't change that.
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?
So you have some link to a definition of it being a parasite.
An unborn baby does exist otherwise what is it they are removing and killing.
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.
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?
When they become citizens? Absolutely. What road are you talking about?
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.
Maybe it was my high school biology, but I was taught that a parasite was of a different species than the host.
WHAT THE FUCK?
Could you be more specific?
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.
I didn't...
Not necessarily.
Emotion doesn't change the fact that this is the relation between a fetus and its mother, and neither does getting personal.
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.
Mmmkay,..
5.3.38
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.
How do you define exist?
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.....
All right, I misspoke. Those who haven't even been conceived.
Those were your words, discussing with Pat Wilson the rights of those who don't exist.
Indeed. Do you disagree that the rights of Americans are established before they are born?
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:
I mean, I certainly believe that rights are subject to our situations. Don't you?
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.
How do you define exist?
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.
Didnt I ask you not to ask me pointless questions?
No I don't.
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.
They babies being aborted have already been conceived that is how they got into the mother in the first place.
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.
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
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.
Finally, you've said something correct.
But after conception there is an entity or person that does get right bestowed upon.
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.
No, after birth.
Who are they? Everyone I know says that only after the two (egg and sperm) are combined (conception) do the resulting entity gain rights.
Please read the entire thread.
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.
I have. Not one person has wanted to give rights to an unfertilized egg or sperm.
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.
Again I have read the whole thread and no one wants to give rights to nonexistent people. Give me one example.
too bad somebody else can't make your healthcare decisions ...
Like a Parasite or cancer. The comparisons are apt.
Why should nonexistent "people" get rights? Especially over the rights of actually existing people?
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.
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.
[✘]
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.
Rights are legally codified and then conferred at birth. I'm not sure why you seem to having difficulty with that concept.
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.
Birth is the point where one is considered a legal person with rights.
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?
True.
Why?
It appears to me to be a compromise among various religious criteria. Neither scientific nor logical.
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?
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.
Personhood is legally recognized at birth.
It's a legal thing.
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 precisely the goal of the right wing fundies.
They won't give two fux about the child once it arrives.
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
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.
Yes, but the law cannot be used to justify the law. That's kinda circular.
Wrong. American law is secular and not religious. This is quite clear.
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?
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?
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?
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.
Is this really addressed to me?
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
Does it say it's in reply to anyone else?
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's simply a legal determination, starting with the Constitution.
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.
In your view, can only humans be persons?
Does "person" have any meaning outside the law?
Not that I am aware of. But neither does it need any.
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.
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.
I'm going to have to think about this...
Take your time.
I'm trying to widen the discussion. Would an alien, arriving in an obviously very advanced space ship, be a person?
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.
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.
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.
No, it doesn't. My purpose is not to supply answers, but to ask questions.
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.
Pretty sure we did...
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'.
Interesting, a word that is general till paired with another word.....
We might some day need a word for "being superior to us". I think our perception of all living things would change.
A logical and legal one.
The right to choose abortion is based on one's right of bodily autonomy.
Sometimes it seems like animals have more rights, especially compared to women.
Legal personhood begins at birth. This has been explained ad nauseum now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 US Code, ss 8 and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Roe wasn't decided on personhood. Roe is now voided anyway.
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?
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 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.
An employer can set the rules of their business. No one is being forced to work for a particular employer.
Such as? Be specific!
Irrelevant and just a "what if" type argument at best. Rights are enumerated regardless.
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.
That is correct and the other mechanism for citizenship is naturalization through due process.
Roe is now a non-issue. Not sure why you keep trying to bring it up?
the abortion issue is going to cripple either the republican party or radical xtianity. pick one and then learn to live with it.
they wore out their tried and true wedge issue. oh well, back to xenophobia...
I suppose they always need a backup?
just a different hand stuffing the same pocket with money from the same accounts...
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.
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.
It's the arguments against abortion that tend to be illogical.
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.
Carl Sagan was one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century. Although it wasn't a key focus of his, he did eventually get around to discussing and writing about the abortion debate. Sagan concluded that the period when the fetus becomes "viable" is the proper demarcation point for the acceptability, or not, of abortion. For almost 50 years this demarcation line served as a defacto compromise between the two sides on abortion. I think we should have left it at that.
On that, I can agree. But that wasn't good enough for anti-abortionists.
nothing is good enough for the thumper vision of xtianity, except their warped version. even their owner's manual contradicts their extreme position. an ancient book of parables that is subordinate to the constitution, by law. it doesn't matter to me who is waving it around or hiding behind the bible, it will never usurp the authority of the constitution or the will of the majority in america. I won't recognize the self appointed authority of religious busy bodies to dictate anything to me or mine while I'm still breathing.
I don't have a uterus, so I don't really feel like I have a valid vote on this issue, but I'm fully on the side of bodily autonomy for women, a fundamental right. equality, individual freedom, freedom from religious interference and imposition in any/every aspect of america life, for anyone that doesn't wish to participate. it's a guaranteed right in the constitution for every american. if this basic freedom for all americans is the ideological hill that anti-choice idiots wish to die on, so be it. personally, as a patriotic american, the action by any group of taking freedom away from any american is my red line.
Bodily autonomy is a constitutional right too.
meh, truth be told, I just want to bust some hypocritical thumper melons...
maybe give a new definition to stained glass windows...
lol
I think we should have left it at that.
So do all the independents who voted against Republicans in what was supposedly going to be a red wave. Silver lining I suppose.
their red wave was cleaned up with 1 paper towel...
Pencils have erasers for a reason and computers have a delete key.
Abortions can fix a problem before more problems result
Anything that is not wanted but you end up stuck with it usually does not taken good care of
If human life has no value before birth then why should human life have value after birth? If human life has no rights or protections before birth then why should human life have rights or protections after birth?
What's the point of maintaining a society for future generations that have not yet been conceived? Why protect the practice of abortion for women who have not yet been conceived? Why should their lives have value before conception and have no value after conception?
Why should anything have any value at any point? Ultimately everything ends, so what is the point? If we all ultimately give in to oblivion the what is the point of anything?
So party hardy and take a dirt nap.
How much of today's population will be alive in 80 years? We're supposed to change our energy usage for future generations; not for ourselves. We're supposed to save democracy for future generations; not for ourselves. Even advocates for abortion argue that the right is to be protected for future generations; not for ourselves.
So, the more pertinent question is why should anything have a future value? If life has no value today then why should we expect life to have value in the future?
"So, the more pertinent question is why should anything have a future value?"
If we care about future values, we must start worrying about overpopulation. The future values of availability of space, water, food production, air ect ect are questionable
If a woman wants to end pregnancy why is it anybody else's business?
It's not!
I use to be pro life but then my accountant pointed out that I have spent 3.7 Million in child support over the last 22 years in support.
Abortion is far cheaper than pregnancy, birth, and child rearing. It's also easier and safer too.
Nope just emotions, feelings and beliefs
So I've noticed. 😉
The answer depends on the ground rules. If "life begins at conception"; then abortion is undoubtedly taking the life of a person, a reprehensible act. If "life begins at conception" is wrong; then discussion is possible.
It seems to me that science is pretty clear about when life began; some 4 000 000 000 years ago. Since then life has been continuous; from parent to offspring. For many species, now, that is plural: parents to offspring. The male supplies sperm, that must be alive or there can be no offspring, the female supplies an egg that must be alive or there can be no offspring. The offspring is born alive (hopefully).
Our society accepts the slaughter of meat animals. Our society generally doesn't approve of killing humans. So the question becomes "what is the moral difference between killing a man and killing a steer?"
IMNAAHO, this is a far more difficult question.
The male supplies sperm, that must be alive or there can be
From that angle, for every successful conception that is brought to term and results in a life outside of the womb MILLIONS of lives must be sacrificed. Worse yet, zillions of sacrificed lives end up in Kleenex every minute of every day across this country. Oh, the humanity!
Evolution being pretty coherent, all the millions of sperm that don't succeed in fertilizing an egg soon die. To be useful on an evolutionary scale, sperm must be alive.... but not viable. The zygote is viable.
This is hardly unique among living creatures. Many have life-cycles that have them dying 1s soon as they have procreated.
Humans have the planet's longest period from fertilization to "full adulthood". A couple decades. Because we are a species that cares for its young - most of us, anyway - we continue to be useful for that time. Then we become useless drones, jealously looking on as our offspring raises its own.
Many have life-cycles that have them dying 1s soon as they have procreated.
The lord works in mysterious ways indeed.
Humans have the planet's longest period from fertilization to "full adulthood".
Humans are also the only species for whom some believe in an eternal afterlife. When I was young my Sunday school teacher informed me that I wouldn’t be meeting my recently deceased dog in heaven, because heaven is only for humans. It’s kinda funny how special we believe ourselves to be relative to the myriad of other forms of life we are surrounded with.
A god who knows everything about one small planet and who intervenes in that planet's details... but who is not the god of the trillions of other worlds? A strange god, indeed.
One of my favorites.
Bizarre
In what way?
There should be no argument or discussion about a matter that is private between a woman and her doctor.
It is none of anyone else's Goddamned business.
All it is, is the so called christian conservatives once again telling everybody how to live and what they can and cannot do.
Nothing more.
I don't care what anyone's faith is or what their beliefs are, it is still none of their fucking business.
Lol God gave mankind free will, apparently pro-lifers hold themselve above God
I can only laugh at people that think they can speak for their God.
I do believe that most arguments against abortion are based on emotion.
However, Dig has given some good arguments about continuing with a viable pregnancy when the mother is healthy.
But....I still believe women have the right to choose what they want to do. What if a women is an abusive relationship and gets pregnant? Does anyone here believe that she should just have that baby and introduce it to a violent home? That's my biggest argument that I have for wanting to abort a healthy fetus. Don't subject an innocent to a hellish life, please.
Yes indeed. Lets see now, they CHOSE to not use contraception, they CHOSE to not get their tubes tied, they CHOSE to spread their legs. They made three bad choices and somehow you expect the fourth one to be better?
Yeah, it's so much better just to kill it.
They're being controlled, can't go to the doctor to get the birth control, man won't wear condom. Being controlled, can't go to the doctor to get tubes tied. Man threatens when she won't put out or he rapes her. So, yeah, I do believe the 4th option is a much better one. Or...she could have the kid, raise it in a violent home, and man either kills her or the child in the future
Hmmm, they can't get to the doctor to get birth control but they can sure find a way to get to one to have an abortion.. I sense a lack of responsible behavior there.
Definitely, in the case of rape, which is about 1 percent of abortions, the woman should be able to get the abortion. Then, the man who committed the rape should be tried and executed for the 1st degree murder of the baby. Not only would that stop a lot of abortions, it would also stop a lot of rapes.
Marital rape can be hard to prove
You weren't listening. Rape, marital or otherwise, accounts for only 1 percent of abortions. That's one in a hundred. What about the other 99? They are rescues for carelessness or stupidity, neither of which should be encouraged since they involve the deliberate killing of a human being. If they can't have sexual activity showing the responsibility of an adult, then they would be too childish to have sex at all.
Having an abortion is taking responsibility. But if you think they're being irresponsible, then they shouldn't have a kid, so abortion is the solution.
I'm all for women not putting out
Don't you hate when they do that? 😉
I'm a woman....and it doesn't bother to not have sex
Men had better be careful. They put all the responsibility of birth control on women. Women are one day just gonna rise up and shout "NO MORE @#$$%!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
That's why women should have all the say regarding their bodily autonomy and reproductive options and choices.
Lysistrata!
You're gonna make me go look stuff up....
....looked it up (not real good with Greek mythology)
LOL! I think this is what the wives of congress men did when they were trying to get the right to vote. I heard that somewhere....
It's actually a pretty funny play, as Greek plays go.
I find it incredible how people think normal everyday people must be so lazy when the birth control failure rate is as high as 23%.
Also a good Todd Rundgren song.
If you don't want choice do not do anything that could lead to abortion
why is something that is not wanted by the person having to pay for it and do the work so important to someone not involved or paying for it?
Control.
If all women stop having sex because they don't want to get pregnant...what are the men going to do?
I would really like an anti-choicer to answer this. [deleted]
Grab 'em by the pussy and stick their tongue down the women's throats. Marital rape is technically illegal in all 50 states though 11 states classify it as a lesser crime. That said there are hundreds, if not thousands of stories of women who can't get their cases of marital rape to trial and when they do they still aren't believed. If these anti-abortion laws stay for any length of time they will eventually see a rise in debt, poverty, single parent households, divorce and domestic violence.
Intelligent, thinking people know that (increase in debt, poverty,divorce, etc) and the ones that are here arguing against abortion are smart, intelligent people but today they aren't thinking rationally. Some would rather tell you that rape counts as only 1% for all abortions. Isn't that enough? They still have no logical, unemotional reason for limiting abortion or outlawing it.
I have said it once and I will keep saying to until I am blue in the face....The Handmaid's Tale is a work of fiction not a fucking DIY video on YOU TUBE
Couple the anti-abortion laws with the weaking of child labor laws, education and federal oversite and we have the prefect conditions to turn whole swaths of the US into a 3rd world work zone. Cheap unskilled labor with little to no protections for health or safety.
And...we had a great article yesterday on women who decide to not have children and others having a hissy fit about it
The weakening of child labor laws is an excellent illustration of why this is NOT about saving children.
it takes more than 2 minimum wage earners per household to live in rwnj america now ...
I am thinking that anyone that suggests that women's abstinence is a realistic solution to "unwanted pregnancies" has either never engaged in sexual intercourse or hates women.
You be the judge...
Well it does seem like biting the hand that feeds ya....or in this case jerks ya off.....
I have a filthy mind and am not afraid to show it
he's not as sexually active now since he can't afford the adult diapers with the reusable fasteners...
Life imitating art, eh?
I truly do think that some in America like Margaret Atwood's Gilead
Why is it that if men do not want to be fathers and have all the responsibilities and consequences that come with fatherhood, you all say he should refrain from having sex but somehow it is not a reasonable answer for women?
I think that should only apply to those who want to prevent abortion
I think it should apply to everyone man or woman equally.
still no answer....what's the matter fellas???? Afraid????
stop scaring the maga men TG!
[deleted]
Men will have sex with men or transgender women. Real women no longer have exclusive control over the male orgasm. Men have been liberated, so thank a liberal.
“Men have been liberated, so thank a liberal.”
Ridiculous.
Men have enjoyed free reign to satiate their needs since time immemorial… including exploiting their victims as needs be.
yes they have
I see you quoted Nerm I have him on ignore, too, so I should have said no arkpdx, no Nerm, no sparty and no texan
[deleted]
Good one! Come into Herding Cats and we will assign them their duties.
Sorry afrayed. I got you into trouble
But now it is socially acceptable. That's why men have been liberated.
No worries…it was well deserved, but well earned, cathartic even.
It was funny
I agree with Trout...it was funny.
yup
I sense a type of inverted polygamy on the horizon for conservative aligned women...
Well,I don't.
Gordy,
I skimmed the comments. Mostly, same old arguments based on emotion.
I did see where someone touched on the real reason that access to abortion (and other forms of birth control) are being outlawed in the US - the US (& world?) economy is based on continuous population growth. This is not sustainable, but what the Hell, NONE of these MEN are risking their health and mental well-being. Their ONLY concern is making MONEY, MONEY, and MORE MONEY. Do any of them have one iota of a conscience? If they did, wouldn't they be using their vast wealth to improve living conditions around the world instead of working to increase the number of impoverished children?
Women, who take responsibility for their lives and refuse to breed willy-nilly, have become Public Enemy #1 for these capitalists and their ilk.
The capitalists and various other organizations, whose business models rely on an ever-increasing population, have made films such as "Demographic Winter" and put out propaganda via various media sources that the human race is going to go extinct due to population collapse.
I just watched a news show from Great Britain that at least discussed both points of view. The discussion begins at about the 30 minute mark and ends around 20 minutes later.
I noticed that too.
I've heard similar arguments. The problem is it becomes a snowball effect and only leads to more problems. Just look at China or India.
Does either (or both) of their governments have forward looking leaders that might actually plan for how to economically and socially handle declining populations?
Is it likely those plans will model the US example of open borders? Or will they consider the social ramifications of trying to either integrate different cultures into the Chinese culture or dealing with various segregated cultures if they don't integrate?
How about denying women access to birth control once they have embraced the freedom to choose whether to reproduce or not? I don't know much about Chinese religion (or lack thereof), but I suspect that China might have to use patriotism as the reason to force women to breed instead of that some perfect supernatural being was responsible for the successful fertilization of an egg and will be mightily displeased if a woman dare use her freewill to reject that fertilization.
Marriage rates are also declining for various reasons. Societies around the world are changing when women gain access to education, birth control and economic freedom. Even so, the world population is expected to be over 10 BILLION people at the end of this century.
The world would benefit greatly if the people, in love with the fetus, would focus that love and attention on all of the children already born.
most republicans would prefer that 99.9% of the world is enslaved.
And I suppose you have evidence of that and that it is not just another inane comment you pulled from your axx
Is there a logical or rational argument to have children?
conservatives have made children unaffordable, hence the movement by them to mandate it.
Worldwide?
probably what their owner's manual dictates...
So glad I bailed on this seed early.
There are certainly arguments that are rational against abortion. I have met a few people who have been haunted by their decision to have an abortion later on in their lives. If you have some sort of moral belief or discomfort with abortion that is conflict with terminating a pregnancy and ignoring this belief would cause one harm later, I believe that to be a rational reason to consider not having an abortion.
Individuals make decisions implying choice.
What justifies denying everyone any choice?
I am not denying anyone the choice, have at it. Just pointing out there are arguments against abortion.
Individually? Yes. Societally? Nope...
Such as?
That's not rational. That's all based in individual personal feelings.