1 1
Coreece

The Big Abortion Thread

Recommended Posts

(edited)
14 minutes ago, billvon said:

Sure.  In Alabama, feticide laws begin at conception.  The fetus then has the right to not be murdered by an assailant.  The law specifically states that this does not apply to abortions initiated by the mother.  Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Idaho, Kentucky and Mississippi have similar laws.

There are some states (like Georgia) that have a requirement that the fetus be "quick" (i.e. starting to move) to be defined as a feticide.

 

Actually, the majority (if not all) of those laws do not grant rights or personhood to fetuses, but are penalty enhancements for crimes against pregnant women.

Edited to add: Though I will certainly admit the right is trying to change that. They are trying to do that by making the rights of the fetus be opposed to the rights of the woman and have courts rule in favour of the fetus.

Guess what that does....control the woman.

 

Edited by SkyDekker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Actually, the majority (if not all) of those laws do not grant rights or personhood to fetuses, but are penalty enhancements for crimes against pregnant women.

?? They do.  If the mother dies but the fetus survives, the feticide charge is dropped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Are they in favour of allowing any child tax credits to start at pregnancy in stead of at birth?

I will agree that a lot of people say they feel that fetuses are human beings, they just don't back up those feelings with actions other than actions to control women.

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

There are attempts to do that in some places — generally sponsored by pro-life groups trying to slide down that slippery slope. There are jurisdictions where a fatal accident involving a pregnant woman counts for two, and requirements in some places to dispose of fetal material as human remains, rather than as tissue. 
Wendy P.

Those are all still control issue, none of those actually provide any benefit to a pregnant woman.

But then even if they did support things like the prenatal tax credit you'd still say that it's just another roundabout way of legalizing the personhood of the fetus and controlling women that way.

Couldn't it be that they don't involve themselves with the census/tax credit issue, because it's the life/death component of abortion that sparks their emotions, not the whole controlling women thing?  Are all the pro-life women trying to control women too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, billvon said:

?? They do.  If the mother dies but the fetus survives, the feticide charge is dropped.

In Louisiana when an unborn child dies of non-wrongful death causes, it is considered to never have existed as a person. That is just one example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

In Louisiana when an unborn child dies of non-wrongful death causes, it is considered to never have existed as a person.

Same thing happens with abortion.

Again, I am not arguing that embryos/fetuses have all the rights that everyone else has.  I am arguing that SOME people honestly believe that it is a human being, and SOME laws reflect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Couldn't it be that they don't involve themselves with the census/tax credit issue, because it's the life/death component of abortion that sparks their emotions,

Strong correlation between those who are against abortion and those who are in favour of the death penalty. So yeah, I am pretty sure life and death indeed sparks emotion for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billvon said:

I am arguing that SOME people honestly believe that it is a human being

No, you were arguing a lot of people honestly believe that. I am arguing that if a lot of people did honestly believe that, there would be some actual benefits that would come with being a human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

No, you were arguing a lot of people honestly believe that. 

Yes.  Millions.  Which is some of America.

You know what?  I have no doubt you can decide to misunderstand whatever I say, so I will let this go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

It applies to all of those that have no effect on anyone else’s body.

So, any qualifiers that you deem appropriate apply, got it. One is free to make decisions unless it has an effect on someone else's body. Therefore, you're saying things can be forced on an individual even if can harm the individual to prevent potential harm to others bodies.

Is that just physical harm or does it include emotional harm or financial stress? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Is that just physical harm or does it include emotional harm or financial stress? 

Why not just ask about the matter at the heart of your question? Yes, I am in favour of vaccine mandates. I could go on at length justifying it but I’m gonna leave it right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Why not just ask about the matter at the heart of your question? Yes, I am in favour of vaccine mandates. I could go on at length justifying it but I’m gonna leave it right there.

Just trying to understand the logic and depth of hair splitting required to reach these conclusions. The opinions formed by those that don't see things under your definitions aren't less valid just different.

Abortion or no abortion effects more than just the mother. The father has no say, either way.  All others involved can be impacted. If the fetus is kept it can place a lifelong burden on society or be a huge benefit to society. That could be simply financial but could include innumerable societal benefits or destructive issues. Both have an impact on others.

The abortion topic and vaccine mandate topic are complicated. To define them with simple black/white statements isn't appropriate. IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
17 minutes ago, billeisele said:

 

 

17 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Abortion or no abortion effects more than just the mother. The father has no say, either way.  All others involved can be impacted. If the fetus is kept it can place a lifelong burden on society or be a huge benefit to society. That could be simply financial but could include innumerable societal benefits or destructive issues. Both have an impact on others.

The effect on anyone else is insignificant compared to the mother. There is no real comparison.

Edited by gowlerk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Vaccine mandates are complicated. Abortion is very simple. But it seems complicated because it is very emotional.

Hi Ken,

IMO the GOP grabbed on to the Roe v Wade for political purposes ONLY.  The emotional thing came later; after they got everybody riled up.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Roe v Wade was decided on 22 Jan 73.  I wonder how many people posting here were adults then.  => they got everybody riled up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Just trying to understand the logic and depth of hair splitting required to reach these conclusions. The opinions formed by those that don't see things under your definitions aren't less valid just different.

Abortion or no abortion effects more than just the mother. The father has no say, either way.  All others involved can be impacted. If the fetus is kept it can place a lifelong burden on society or be a huge benefit to society. That could be simply financial but could include innumerable societal benefits or destructive issues. Both have an impact on others.

The abortion topic and vaccine mandate topic are complicated. To define them with simple black/white statements isn't appropriate. IMO

I agree that they are complicated.

But let me ask this:

Who, other than the fetus, can the abortion KILL?

Drunk driving is illegal because it can and does kill other people. It's called 'homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle'. The penalties are in line with involuntary manslaughter. That's a fairly recent (past 40 or 50 years) change.

Smoking is tightly restricted because second hand smoke is dangerous. Again, a fairly recent change.
On a side note, I've pondered mooching a cigarette off one of my friends who smokes.
Then, when I'm in a 'masks required' area and virtually nobody is wearing one, pulling it out and lighting it up.
The good old "if you're going to pick and choose which rules to obey then so am I".

The unvaccinated are killing people. First by spreading the virus, second by tying up hospital resources. The hospitals are FULL. People who need life saving care are dying because they can't get in. The majority of Covid patients in the hospital are unvaxed. The VAST majority in ICU and on ventilators are unvaxed.

Vax mandates have already been ruled legal by the SC. It was a while back, but precedent is still in place. 

I find it rather disgusting that people ignore the BILLIONS of vax doses safely administered, and latch onto the very, very small number of serious side effect cases.
It's also maddening how many fools are refusing it just because "they don't want to do what they are told to do." Seriously, it's like they're toddlers refusing their vegetables.

But, hey. They're dying by the thousands.
I can't recall any event in recent history where stupidity was this deadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, billvon said:

You know what?  I have no doubt you can decide to misunderstand whatever I say, so I will let this go.

Oh boy, even the moderators are starting to see it.  You guys are in trouble now!

 

 

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, billeisele said:

....A womans right to control her body seems reasonable. It also seems reasonable that some limits/rules could be established to prevent behavior that repeatedly uses that right to terminate fetuses

Emphasis, mine.

If it's alright to terminate a fetus, why is it not alright to repeatedly terminate fetuses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, billeisele said:

So, any qualifiers that you deem appropriate apply, got it.

Pretty much every law/rule/guideline/standard has qualifiers.  You're not allowed to shoot someone - unless they are breaking into your house and threatening you.  You're allowed to smoke - provided no one else has to breathe the smoke.  Etc etc.

Quote

Therefore, you're saying things can be forced on an individual even if can harm the individual to prevent potential harm to others bodies.

Yes.  If you are on an airplane you have to wear a seatbelt even if you believe that wearing one will harm you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

If it's alright to terminate a fetus, why is it not alright to repeatedly terminate fetuses?

And to add to this question - is this actually a problem? What are the numbers on this? Without numbers this can be just like arguing for having triple reserves when skydiving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
1 hour ago, NewGuy2005 said:

If it's alright to terminate a fetus, why is it not alright to repeatedly terminate fetuses?

And to add to this question - is this actually a problem? What are the numbers on this? Without numbers this can be just like arguing for having triple reserves when skydiving.

I've read (in the distant past, I'll admit) that the former Eastern Bloc countries had the largest proportion of repeat abortions. Here, since they cost money, and a significant amount if it's not the morning after pill, I have a feeling the number is fairly small.

As far as the morning after pill, well, I'm for it. Regardless of how many times someone uses it. It shows they're thinking ahead. In fact, when my son was a little before likely sexually active age (12; I'm realistic), I told him this was possible, and told him how to look it up on the internet, since that was already a thing. I convinced him to listen by reminding him that it might be someone else who needed the information, not him.

Wendy P.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I support choice.  I'm concerned that it might be the wrong choice.

I was born in 1958.  I was adopted in 1958.  Pretty sure I wouldn't be here had I been conceived in the past 40 years.

And if my mother had married a different man, I wouldn't have been here either. The thing is that I at least am not that concerned about it -- there isn't a core of me-ness that is aware of existence before I was born, and therefore there isn't any loss if I'm not born. I don't know about any core of me-ness after I die, either, but I'm comfortable with that. I'm not in charge.

I like to think of myself as a happy accident, kind of like a whole lot of evolution that turned out to be better.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1