Abortion is now illegal in the United States

[canndo]

Well canndo it looks like you're not the only one that has to make up hypothetical arguments to miss lead people into believing things that isn't true.

[video=youtube_share;8k-KuYJraEg]http://youtu.be/8k-KuYJraEg[/video]

My machine won't play this for me. Now, how am I missleading people into believing things that are not true with my hypothetical? There is nothing "hypothetical" with the personhood bill and this is the basis of my conjecture. Kindly tell me what I am saying that would do as you suggest.

 

[nontheist]

My machine won't play this for me. Now, how am I missleading people into believing things that are not true with my hypothetical? There is nothing "hypothetical" with the personhood bill and this is the basis of my conjecture. Kindly tell me what I am saying that would do as you suggest.

Romney has said many many times that he, supports abortions for rape victims or if the mothers life is in danger. The only thing he doesn't like which most agree on, is using it for making irresponsible choices.

 

[canndo]

Romney has said many many times that he, supports abortions for rape victims or if the mothers life is in danger. The only thing he doesn't like which most agree on, is using it for making irresponsible choices.

There is no provision for rape or incest in the Republican party platform. Nor, in my imaginary scenario do I say anything about rape victims or incest or even the endangerment of the mother.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/g-o-p-approves-strict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/

Romeny can call for alterations of the platform of which he is the party leader, yet he has not.

 

[nontheist]

There is no provision for rape or incest in the Republican party platform. Nor, in my imaginary scenario do I say anything about rape victims or incest or even the endangerment of the mother.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/g-o-p-approves-strict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/

Romeny can call for alterations of the platform of which he is the party leader, yet he has not.

The platform hasn't changed on abortion since 2004, whats your point? If he gets elected he will wave his magic underwear and enact laws to make abortion illegal?

 

[UncleBuck]

Isnt this comparable to saying "If Obama wins election he will take away all your guns?".

no, that's your deluded conspiracy theory.

outlawing abortion is the GOP platform, and very achievable given a SCOTUS pick or two.

 

[Rob Roy]

The other "point of view" is one where the fetus is not entitled to any rights not granted by the mother until it is capable of living outside the womb. there are legal provisions for multiple murder if a mother is killed while pregnant but that isn't the point here.

This is simply an exploration of the changes in our society were the doctrine of personhood were to be the law of the land.

Capable of living outside the womb? Hmmm. Newborn babies, 5 month old babies, 9 month old babies...are they capable of living outside the womb?

At any rate, I don't think it is up to me or a panel of judges to decide what other people do with their bodies. I echo what others have said, to make a person pay for anothers abortion (via taxation) seems to be the wrong approach, both legally (religious rights) and morally (involuntary taxation is theft) .

Also you mentioned "rights not granted by the mother..." Mothers and governments don't grant rights now do they?

 

[UncleBuck]

Care to inject some intellect in your post or leave it the steaming pile of shit it is?

 

[canndo]

Capable of living outside the womb? Hmmm. Newborn babies, 5 month old babies, 9 month old babies...are they capable of living outside the womb?

At any rate, I don't think it is up to me or a panel of judges to decide what other people do with their bodies. I echo what others have said, to make a person pay for anothers abortion (via taxation) seems to be the wrong approach, both legally (religious rights) and morally (involuntary taxation is theft) .

Also you mentioned "rights not granted by the mother..." Mothers and governments don't grant rights now do they?

Yes, newborns, even preborns let along 5 or 9 month olds are fully capable of living ouside of the womb. as in the case of the babies that are born, it is a given that they are capable of living outside of what has only recently ejected them.

the problem you have here Rob is the differenciation between a mother' s body and the fetus/zygote/child/human/potential human/person/citizen.

If a mother is allowed to "do as she pleases" with her body, and no one is to tell her otherwise, certain actions of hers will cause death to the fetus/zygote/....... That is the problem we all have here and it seems the crux of the problem you have with your ideology. Many people want the unborn to be protected and the only way that can be done is by government action. The very government action you deplore because it serves to act on the freedom of the mother.

I see you arrived late, this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with government paying for abortions, in fact it has little to do with abortion at all.

At what point do you believe the unborn child recieves or retains the liberties you claim exist?

 

[Rob Roy]

Yes, newborns, even preborns let along 5 or 9 month olds are fully capable of living ouside of the womb. as in the case of the babies that are born, it is a given that they are capable of living outside of what has only recently ejected them.

the problem you have here Rob is the differenciation between a mother' s body and the fetus/zygote/child/human/potential human/person/citizen.

If a mother is allowed to "do as she pleases" with her body, and no one is to tell her otherwise, certain actions of hers will cause death to the fetus/zygote/....... That is the problem we all have here and it seems the crux of the problem you have with your ideology. Many people want the unborn to be protected and the only way that can be done is by government action. The very government action you deplore because it serves to act on the freedom of the mother.

I see you arrived late, this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with government paying for abortions, in fact it has little to do with abortion at all.

At what point do you believe the unborn child recieves or retains the liberties you claim exist?

I've mentioned I have a personal dilemma with abortion, I don't know at which specific point in time an unborn being gains rights, I'm speaking philosophically not legally by the way. What do you think? Is there a magic time when a being becomes a "person" ?


I do tend to think of late term abortions as very close to killing a birthed baby. The mother of my children was born premature in the 1950s...just shy of 7 months. her survival was rare for that time. I imagine the survival bar for a fetus is much lower these days... My ideology is that killing others is wrong unless it is a defensive act. I also believe it is wrong to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. I'm not "for" abortion, but neither am I "for" telling others what to do or not to do. So I think ultimately this is a decision I'm not comfortable making regarding other people.

 

[cannabineer]

I've mentioned I have a personal dilemma with abortion, I don't know at which specific point in time an unborn being gains rights, I'm speaking philosophically not legally by the way. What do you think? Is there a magic time when a being becomes a "person" ?


I do tend to think of late term abortions as very close to killing a birthed baby. The mother of my children was born premature in the 1950s...just shy of 7 months. her survival was rare for that time. I imagine the survival bar for a fetus is much lower these days... My ideology is that killing others is wrong unless it is a defensive act. I also believe it is wrong to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. I'm not "for" abortion, but neither am I "for" telling others what to do or not to do. So I think ultimately this is a decision I'm not comfortable making regarding other people.

Biologically, the progression from a smear of cells (obviously not a person) to an eight-month fetus (obviously a person) is without convenient steps or delineations. We have to supply one, and it'll be arbitrary.
I think it's safe to say that once a fetus can be sustained outside the mother's body, it is now a baby.
I also think it's safe to say (unless one is subordinate to strict religious teaching on the subject) that a zygote is not a person.

I do not know of a good way to assign that boundary. For practical purposes, I think it's somewhere around month four or five, which corresponds to the traditional "quickening", when a woman can feel the unborn inside her begin to move. But for purposes of generating a universal, portable standard for the line between "just life" and "a person" ... I'm interested in ideas ... cn

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I also think it's safe to say (unless one is subordinate to strict religious teaching on the subject) that a zygote is not a person.

That's untrue. This is now the one million fifth time I have to say this. People who are secular humanist and militant non-theiests non-spiritual also are 100% against abortion. Like you said it's arbitrary. Life isn't arbitrary. The only non-arbitrary point is fertilization, which even100% of scientists agree is when it becomes a human growing lifeform.

 

[canndo]

I've mentioned I have a personal dilemma with abortion, I don't know at which specific point in time an unborn being gains rights, I'm speaking philosophically not legally by the way. What do you think? Is there a magic time when a being becomes a "person" ?


I do tend to think of late term abortions as very close to killing a birthed baby. The mother of my children was born premature in the 1950s...just shy of 7 months. her survival was rare for that time. I imagine the survival bar for a fetus is much lower these days... My ideology is that killing others is wrong unless it is a defensive act. I also believe it is wrong to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. I'm not "for" abortion, but neither am I "for" telling others what to do or not to do. So I think ultimately this is a decision I'm not comfortable making regarding other people.

In my opinion a child is not a person until after it is born. Christians read their book with an emotional bias and nowhere in that book does it describe otherwise, nor could it as those who wrote it had little idea of the goings on in the womb. Jewish understanding is that a baby, even after it is born is not yet a person. I believe that the best we can do is use that moving target of "generaly capable of surving outside of the womb". One day that will extend all the way to a fertilized egg and then we will have the problem all over again.

 

[Rob Roy]

That's untrue. This is now the one million fifth time I have to say this. People who are secular humanist and militant non-theiests non-spiritual also are 100% against abortion. Like you said it's arbitrary. Life isn't arbitrary. The only non-arbitrary point is fertilization, which even100% of scientists agree is when it becomes a human growing lifeform.

This is an interesting and valid argument.

 

[cannabineer]

In my opinion a child is not a person until after it is born. Christians read their book with an emotional bias and nowhere in that book does it describe otherwise, nor could it as those who wrote it had little idea of the goings on in the womb. Jewish understanding is that a baby, even after it is born is not yet a person. I believe that the best we can do is use that moving target of "generaly capable of surving outside of the womb". One day that will extend all the way to a fertilized egg and then we will have the problem all over again.

At the same time, once a zygote can be brought to term in a machine ... a new modus is available that was not in an in vivo pregnancy ... Clerical Error. "It wasn't miscarried, but ... mislaid ..." cn

 

[canndo]

That's untrue. This is now the one million fifth time I have to say this. People who are secular humanist and militant non-theiests non-spiritual also are 100% against abortion. Like you said it's arbitrary. Life isn't arbitrary. The only non-arbitrary point is fertilization, which even100% of scientists agree is when it becomes a human growing lifeform.

This is a false argument, it casts the notion that because everyone is against abortion then abortion should be made illegal.


I think I can say that almost everyone in this country if not the world is against war, and yet at each instance war will be judged necessary by one faction or another.

 

[Rob Roy]

In my opinion a child is not a person until after it is born. Christians read their book with an emotional bias and nowhere in that book does it describe otherwise, nor could it as those who wrote it had little idea of the goings on in the womb. Jewish understanding is that a baby, even after it is born is not yet a person. I believe that the best we can do is use that moving target of "generaly capable of surving outside of the womb". One day that will extend all the way to a fertilized egg and then we will have the problem all over again.

An unborn child minutes before birth is very capable of feeling pain. Do you have a point at which YOU are uncomfortable with a person aborting another being? Surely you do not think an 8th month abortion is acceptable?

 

[canndo]

At the same time, once a zygote can be brought to term in a machine ... a new modus is available that was not in an in vivo pregnancy ... Clerical Error. "It wasn't miscarried, but ... mislaid ..." cn

\Very funny.

And if each embryo could be brought to term by machine, who's responsibility is it to do so? the state that has determined the right of each ferilized egg to come to term? or shall we have he state enforce payment of he individuals who conceived? And if they simply don' have the money, what shall we do? beyond that, when the child has come to term and is finally "born" who then is responsible?

 

[cannabineer]

That's untrue. This is now the one million fifth time I have to say this. People who are secular humanist and militant non-theiests non-spiritual also are 100% against abortion. Like you said it's arbitrary. Life isn't arbitrary. The only non-arbitrary point is fertilization, which even100% of scientists agree is when it becomes a human growing lifeform.

Not people in general, Canna. You are the first atheistic pro-lifer I have ever encountered. You provide an exception, but it's a useful rule of thumb. For 99+% of pro-lifers in the USA today, religion underlies the moral argument.
That does not invalidate or cheapen your atheistic pro-life chance, but imo it is a rare one.

But the argument (as I see it) isn't about "life". A zygote is plainly alive, and it's plainly made of 100% human cells. But it isn't a person yet. cn

 

[canndo]

An unborn child minutes before birth is very capable of feeling pain. Do you have a point at which YOU are uncomfortable with a person aborting another being? Surely you do not think an 8th month abortion is acceptable?

I do not believe that the ability to feel pain confers upon humans heir humanness. I am uncomforable wih a fetus being terminated after it could have been kep alive outside of the womb.

 

[cannabineer]

\Very funny.

And if each embryo could be brought to term by machine, who's responsibility is it to do so? the state that has determined the right of each ferilized egg to come to term? or shall we have he state enforce payment of he individuals who conceived? And if they simply don' have the money, what shall we do? beyond that, when the child has come to term and is finally "born" who then is responsible?

I admit (with a certain sense of relief) that these are moral and practical issues that will keep until they're raised by the advent of technical capacity.

(Although I can imagine that it will be driven by money ... you'd have to sign for and fund the incubator ...)
(which raises thorny issues of a different sort. Wealth would have an effect on "natural selection" that went from unspecified to absolute ...) cn