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

ksu_aviator said:

All of your reasons have to do with money. You brought it up, you chastised me for pointing it out and you continue to bring it up. It is one thing to take a position and follow through on it. But it is very odd to see someone take a position, deny they took that position and then continue to take that same position.

As for the risk, the maternity death rate in America is 0.0178%. To put it into perspective, Health Care Workers die at a rate of 2.3% and teachers at a rate of 2.0%.

Additionally, maternity death rates are 17.8 per 100,000 pregnancies while the rest of the population passes away at 823.7 per 100,000.

So, yes, I'm very comfortable with it.

Click to expand...

FutureIncoming said:

BRAGGING ABOUT YOURSELF, I SEE. Tsk, tsk! It is perfectly possible to own stuff that is not part of your body (like both food and excrement).

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

Bragging about myself? No, bragging would be me saying that I am far more generous than you for starving in order to pay child support.

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

You're like an ant and I'm the great Buddha.

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

Your points are stupid and my argument is cogent.

Click to expand...

ModerationNow! said:

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.

Click to expand...

Tom Foolery said:

I like the tone of this OP. Nobody making policy should disregard the most compelling points and interests of the opposition. The intense oppositional extremes do just that.
Those that are pro life disregard at every turn in every argument that the life, however defined, is inside the body of another, that the issue involves healthcare
of the woman and that in any issue involving invasion of or control of a person's body, the state is impinging on 4th amendment issues, liberty interest and privacy
in health and body. On the other hand, pro choice arguments tend to completely ignore the inchoate or potential person in their arguments. If you only listened to one side
or the other, and fell from mars the arguments would appear no brainers, when in fact the issues are extremely complicated and involve competing and irreconsilable
conflict which can only be put to rest by each side's compromise from adherence to absolute principle.

Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:

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.

Click to expand...

Tom Foolery said:

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/2015/0...ns-as-fourth-amendment-searches-and-seizures/

Click to expand...

Tom Foolery said:

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/2015/0...ns-as-fourth-amendment-searches-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.

Click to expand...

Tom Foolery said:

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.

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

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.

Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:

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.

Click to expand...

Tom Foolery said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

ModerationNow! said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wessexman said:

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.

Click to expand...

minnie616 said:

Again even the US abortions past 24 weeks are extreamly rare. They make up about .01 percent ( that’s point 01 , meaning one one hundredth of a percent ) of all abortions in the US.

In 1996 it was estimated that .08 percent of US abortions were past 24 weeks.

Thanks to better more accurate genetic testing and other testing we were able to reduce those numbers in the US.

Click to expand...

In late 2011, the CDC published a report that observed 1.3 percent of abortions were performed at 21 weeks gestation and later.

“With nearly one million abortions annually in the U.S., abortionists are killing close to 13,000 children every year who are often fully developed and can survive outside the womb,” Lila Rose, president of Live Action, notes. “While the abortion industry claims that late-term abortions are an insignificant number of abortions and they’re only done because of a disability the baby has or to protect the life of the mother, the evidence says just the opposite.”

Research published by the Guttmacher Institute also finds that most late-term abortions were not done for medical reasons – as the abortion lobby often states. Fetal abnormalities “make up a small minority” of late-term abortions, and those for saving the life of the mother are even less.

Click to expand...

Wessexman said:

Okay, that isn't strictly relevant to my points.

Click to expand...

minnie616 said:

The US already decided that a fetus is not a person, but it did take the states interest into future persons at the point of viability.

That is the legal line , and that follows the first amendment and guarantees religious liberty for the Jewish and mainline Protestant religions.

Click to expand...

Pureinheart said:

I think your numbers are wayyyyy off....

CDC: Nearly 13,000 Fully Developed Babies Aborted Each Year - Breitbart

Click to expand...

In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[19]

Click to expand...

91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.

Click to expand...

Wessexman said:

This isn't directly relevant to the basic philosophical issues I mentioned. The state doesn't decide what is ultimately true. And I'm not even an American. Why should I care what an American case, that the was admitted by the majority in Planned Parenthood vs Casey to be bad jurisprudence, matter much to me?

Click to expand...

Wessexman said:

I think the fundamental issue is whether or not the fetus is a person

Click to expand...

There are good philosophical arguments for it becoming a person at multiple points from conception to third trimester.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Wessexman said:

You didn't answer my questions. It means little to me - would you care if I started quoting rulings from the law lords? My points were primarily philosophical/ethical, anyway.

Click to expand...

There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. [Footnote 56] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. [Footnote 57] It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family.
[Footnote 58]

Click to expand...

Pureinheart said:

I think your numbers are wayyyyy off....

CDC: Nearly 13,000 Fully Developed Babies Aborted Each Year - Breitbart

Click to expand...