Page 94 of 96 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596 LastLast
Results 931 to 940 of 960

Thread: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

  1. #931
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    I assume you're referring to the "14th Amendment" rather than the "4th Amendment".

    Well, some pro-life advocates subscribe to "potential person", while probably way more subscribe to the belief that a zygote is a person. Given the latter stance, what do you believe to be the origin and/or foundation of pro-life advocates' beliefs about the yet to be born automatically possessing the status of personhood at conception? But equally important, why do do you believe that pro-choice advocates (I opine they "don't ignore", but rather disagree) with such tenets?

    Do you believe that pro-life advocates "ignore" researching and take into consideration "Unintended Consequences of Constitutionally Granting Personhood for the Yet to be Born"?

    Do believe that it's possible to consider all stages of human life equal philosophically, physically, and legally? In other words, do all stages of human life have equal value in every aspect of their existence? If so, how?

    You do realize that the vast majority of the people in the world can't agree on who makes the best tacos, much less agree on who should control human reproduction.

    I say this issue is - for the lack of a more profound word - "complicated" - in a way that makes a compromise unlikely.
    Not really. I meant the 4th insofar as the unreasonable search and seizure proscription is implicated in any sort of bodily invasion, as when cops want to force a person of interest or suspect to draw blood. So it's a corollary of that and in the case of some things actually physically intrusive. I am aware of the bases of Roe and its reliance on the 14th and privacy. The notion that the state can prevent a person from complete autonomy in control of their own bodies, to my mind, implicates the 4th. Your comment caused me to look it up, and it appears someone agrees with me, at least.

    https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/01...-and-seizures/

    As to your question about personhood at conception, the source of that thinking is religious and necessarily involves the concept of the soul. There is no "quickening" or movement at conception. There certainly is no intelligence at the earliest stages of foetal development. It is still trying to grow a darn head, much less a thinking brain imbued with say, volition or other hallmarks of "personhood." Roe is a decent survey of the history of abortion and its treatment by the law before enlightenment onward, as I recall.

    The next question, good lord, that requires quite an essay. I take you point as rhetorical and will agree with the inference. No, I don't believe in some sort of longitudinal equality of humanity in the life cycle whether using a framework of philosophy or biology. I think the law should follow those. Finally I discount religion as a source bearing on this or any other subject as I am irreligious. It should only be respected to the extent we are forced to empathize with the many of others who value religiosity in the extreme. That is a matter of sociology and pragmatism, there is no organic truth to superstitious religion, so it has no value for me in solving any problem at all.
    Last edited by Tom Foolery; 10-12-17 at 01:43 PM.

  2. #932
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    27,424

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Foolery View Post
    Not really. I meant the 4th insofar as the unreasonable search and seizure proscription is implicated in any sort of bodily invasion, as when cops want to force a person of interest or suspect to draw blood. So it's a corollary of that and in the case of some things actually physically intrusive. I am aware of the bases of Roe and its reliance on the 14th and privacy. The notion that the state can prevent a person from complete autonomy in control of their own bodies, to my mind, implicates the 4th. Your comment caused me to look it up, and it appears someone agrees with me, at least.

    https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/01...-and-seizures/
    This is indeed a key right that would be taken from women if the unborn were accorded rights. But apparently, that doesnt matter to many pro-life people. Even tho...it means it would affect EVERY woman, pregnant or not.

    Yeah...who do you (universal 'you') value more? Women or the unborn? You cannot value both equally. The law cant and ethically people cannot either...altho many lie and say they value both equally. (And once again I will write that I do value the unborn, but I value women more highly, putting them as the priority.)

    Very very few pro-life people ever admit they value the unborn more. They fool themselves into thinking they can value both equally. And then some are just dishonest. At least Renae was honest about that in a recent thread.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  3. #933
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,217

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Foolery View Post
    Not really. I meant the 4th insofar as the unreasonable search and seizure proscription is implicated in any sort of bodily invasion, as when cops want to force a person of interest or suspect to draw blood. So it's a corollary of that and in the case of some things actually physically intrusive. I am aware of the bases of Roe and its reliance on the 14th and privacy. The notion that the state can prevent a person from complete autonomy in control of their own bodies, to my mind, implicates the 4th. Your comment caused me to look it up, and it appears someone agrees with me, at least.

    https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/01...-and-seizures/

    As to your question about personhood at conception, the source of that thinking is religious and necessarily involves the concept of the soul. There is no "quickening" or movement at conception. There certainly is no intelligence at the earliest stages of foetal development. It is still trying to grow a darn head, much less a thinking brain imbued with say, volition or other hallmarks of "personhood." Roe is a decent survey of the history of abortion and its treatment by the law before enlightenment onward, as I recall.

    The next question, good lord, that requires quite an essay. I take you point as rhetorical and will agree with the inference. No, I don't believe in some sort of longitudinal equality of humanity in the life cycle whether using a framework of philosophy or biology. I think the law should follow those. Finally I discount religion as a source bearing on this or any other subject as I am irreligious. It should only be respected to the extent we are forced to empathize with the many of others who value religiosity in the extreme. That is a matter of sociology and pragmatism, there is no organic truth to superstitious religion, so it has no value for me in solving any problem at all.
    I appreciate the Harvard link. It makes some interesting points, some that Justice Ginsburg, herself, made in recent months. Roe v Wade's premise is weak, didn't go far enough to directly protect women.

    Roe v Wade was a class action suit that involved doctors who were at risk of imprisonment, and many simply because of accusations.

    But I would add another Amendment beyond the 4th and 14th. The 13th Amendment. When considering the external powers involved that has the ability to diminish the intent of Roe v Wade, The 13th argument would makes apparent that women forced to give birth would to be imposing involuntary servitude physically and financially. And the 5th and 9th Amendments shouldn't be ignored. Procedural Due Process is as important as Substantive Due Process. And our (individual) rights should be continuously scrutinized and enhanced where possible to reduce unnecessary interventions into our lives by government.

    Thanks for your reply.

    "We risk being the first people in history to have been able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive, so realistic that they can live in them." ~~~ Daniel J. Boorstin

  4. #934
    Sage

    Scrabaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,313

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Foolery View Post
    Not really. I meant the 4th insofar as the unreasonable search and seizure proscription is implicated in any sort of bodily invasion, as when cops want to force a person of interest or suspect to draw blood.
    Cops can force a blood draw in the US? They can't here. If they want blood or breathalyizer test for alcohol impairment, you can refuse. However, you will be charged with refusing, which upon conviction, carries the same penalty as impaired driving, but they cannot physically force you to submit to either.

    At any rate, there is a HUGE difference between drawing blood, which carries very little, if any, risk and gestating for 9 months and delivering, which does carry risk. More risk than a legal early term abortion.

  5. #935
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrabaholic View Post
    Cops can force a blood draw in the US? They can't here. If they want blood or breathalyizer test for alcohol impairment, you can refuse. However, you will be charged with refusing, which upon conviction, carries the same penalty as impaired driving, but they cannot physically force you to submit to either.

    At any rate, there is a HUGE difference between drawing blood, which carries very little, if any, risk and gestating for 9 months and delivering, which does carry risk. More risk than a legal early term abortion.
    I didn't say what the law was, I said that it has been an issue and whenever any issue of an intrusion under state aegis arises, the 4th is implicated.
    This is a digression. And yes, I agree. That only strengthens my point. Thanks.

  6. #936
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    I appreciate the Harvard link. It makes some interesting points, some that Justice Ginsburg, herself, made in recent months. Roe v Wade's premise is weak, didn't go far enough to directly protect women.

    Roe v Wade was a class action suit that involved doctors who were at risk of imprisonment, and many simply because of accusations.

    But I would add another Amendment beyond the 4th and 14th. The 13th Amendment. When considering the external powers involved that has the ability to diminish the intent of Roe v Wade, The 13th argument would makes apparent that women forced to give birth would to be imposing involuntary servitude physically and financially. And the 5th and 9th Amendments shouldn't be ignored. Procedural Due Process is as important as Substantive Due Process. And our (individual) rights should be continuously scrutinized and enhanced where possible to reduce unnecessary interventions into our lives by government.

    Thanks for your reply.
    Involuntary servitude. That's throwing a strong roundhouse punch. Creative thinking. The logic is surely there. With my unstudied first glance it sounds like a reach, but probably no more so than my use of the 4th. I think Roe did employ 5th and 9th. When do we get around to the dormant commerce clause. You are getting pretty esoteric. But I like it. Thanks.

  7. #937
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,808

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Foolery View Post
    Involuntary servitude. That's throwing a strong roundhouse punch. Creative thinking. The logic is surely there. With my unstudied first glance it sounds like a reach, but probably no more so than my use of the 4th. I think Roe did employ 5th and 9th. When do we get around to the dormant commerce clause. You are getting pretty esoteric. But I like it. Thanks.
    As author Kent Pitman described in an article:

    Not allowing a pregnant woman a legal abortion choice during pregnacy is very much an involuntary servitude.

    Forced pregnancy means risk of medical harm with no input from the woman.


    Forced pregnancy reduces the status of a pregnant woman “autonomous adult citizen” to “lesser person.”

    Forced pregnancy is a verdict or judgment, but without due process of law.

    Held to a fate against her will. Deprived of the right to get out of the situation. Unable to refuse the work involved. Receiving no compensation. That's the very essence of slavery.
    Author Kent Pitman

    netsettlement: I am not Pro-Slavery. Are you?
    Last edited by minnie616; 10-12-17 at 04:58 PM.
    Judge not, that ye be not judged.
    Matthew 7:1 KJV

  8. #938
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

    Quote Originally Posted by ModerationNow! View Post
    I've been on both sides of this issue. Ironically, I was on the pro-life side at the time that I was more likely to vote Democrat and oppose conservatism. But now that I see myself as a moderate conservative, I'm actually somewhat pro-choice, at least involving early term abortion.

    It's often the case that partisans tend to come up with dishonest and inaccurate words and phrases to positively describe the name of their group or their political positions. But in the case of abortion, both sides have chosen terminology that accurately describes their positions. The pro-choice group are accurately supporting choice, and the pro-life side are genuinely defending human life.

    But the fact that often seems to escape both sides, is that this issue isn't as cut and dry as they attempt to make it out to be. Example: If the argument was whether or not a parent should be allowed to 'abort' the life of their 15 year old kid, because of his/her rebellious mannerisms and bad grades, BOTH sides would be marching together to oppose that.

    But it doesn't involve 'post-birth' people, it involves a pre-birth fetus or baby(depending upon your choice of terminology). But even though the person hasn't been born yet, it doesn't make them any less human to the pro-life side. Therefore to them, it's murder. Pro-lifers think that every person has a right to life. Many also support the death penalty, but that's a completely different circumstance involving the worst of society's murderous criminals, not innocent babies who have never even been granted the ability to live their life.

    But to pro-choice folks, what's most important is a woman's ability to make decisions that directly involve her own body. For many women, mind and body are inextricably linked, probably more so than for men. So, regardless of the reason she became pregnant, and regardless of the fact that the fetus will eventually grow into a person, she may feel that being FORCED to take the pregnancy to term and birth, is going to be a major mental and physical event that cannot be minimized. If she isn't prepared to raise a kid, and she is worried about the negative mental and physical ramifications that may develop after birth. That can be an enormous burden, and the idea that she just isn't allowed to have any input on what happens inside her own body at that point, was probably a pretty difficult and frustrating reality. Granted, she could put the baby up for adoption, but that still means that she has to go through the incredibly 'inconvenient' 270 days of pregnancy. Its not as simple as just carrying around an extra item in your pocket for 9 months! There can be other mental and physical problems that arise after giving birth.

    So obviously both sides are on solid moral ground here, it's just not a simple issue, and it shouldn't be trivialized by anyone.
    You make some good points. I think the fundamental issue is whether or not the fetus is a person, and from what point. There are good philosophical arguments for it becoming a person at multiple points from conception to third trimester. There are pro-choice extremists (a few here) who think it doesn't matter whether the fetus is a person - the woman's right to her trumps its right to life even in that situation. But even most pro-choicers would balk at that, so the key issue is when it becomes a person. A lot of the reason people talk past each other in these debates is because people have different beliefs on this issue. For example, it is one thing to say it is an invasion of a woman's right to privacy to say she can't abort what is not yet a human person inside of her, it is something else to say her privacy means she can kill a full human being, as much a person as you or I, in her womb.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 10-13-17 at 02:46 AM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  9. #939
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,808

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    You make some good points. I think the fundamental issue is whether or not the fetus is a person, and from what point. There are good philosophical arguments for it becoming a person at multiple points from conception to third trimester. There are pro-choice extremists (a few here) who think it doesn't matter whether the fetus is a person - the woman's right to her trumps its right to life even in that situation. But even most pro-choicers would balk at that, so the key issue is when it becomes a person. A lot of the reason people talk past each other in these debates is because people have different beliefs on this issue. For example, it is one thing to say it is an invasion of a woman's right to privacy to say she can't abort what is not yet a human person inside of her, it is something else to say her privacy means she can kill a full human being, as much a person as you or I, in her womb.
    Roe vs Wade and the US does not recognize an unborn as person however at Viability ( usually about 24 weeks gestation ) Roe vs does recognize the states compelling interest in future human life and allows states to prohibit ( ban ) abortions except in cases where the woman’s life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur ( kidney damage, liver damage, stroke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down etc. ) these are extreme cases and are extremely rare. In fact so rare according to a 2003 Fox News article about 100 US abortions later than 24 weeks gestation take place a year in the US.

    Fast Facts: U.S. Abortion Statistics | Fox News
    Last edited by minnie616; 10-13-17 at 03:33 AM.
    Judge not, that ye be not judged.
    Matthew 7:1 KJV

  10. #940
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

    Okay, that isn't strictly relevant to my points.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •