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

[classiclogic]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

There is nothing moral about trying to mandate that a woman stay pregnant...

Unless you feel that she is carrying a human life, in which case it would be the highest degree of moral conclusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

We generally try to avoid ending a person's life based on mob rule justifications.

And yet the mob did not determine the law, SCOTUS did. Before that, mob rule outlawed abortion. Just goes to show that the mob can be wrong. Thank god for the branches of government and that we're not a pure democracy.

 

[classiclogic]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The placenta is a shared organ, and part of it belongs to the woman's body. Every cell in that part of it has her DNA, not the DNA of the unborn human. AND the placenta is not a vital organ for the woman --if she requests that HER part of the placenta be removed from HER womb (which is actually the part of the overall placenta that physically is connected to her womb), that is entirely and totally within her rights! If the unborn human dies as a side-effect, so what? Can you offer one single reason why an average healthy unborn human needs to keep existing? Especially when they are SO easy to replace?

This is incorrect for the same reason that you cannot withhold other life essentials from your child and claim that they were "not his/hers". I cannot remove food and water from my home and let my child die, and justify it by claiming that those items were uniquely mine, thus I had a right to remove them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

And yet the mob did not determine the law, SCOTUS did. Before that, mob rule outlawed abortion. Just goes to show that the mob can be wrong. Thank god for the branches of government and that we're not a pure democracy.

The SCOTUS has been responsible to very wrong decisions in the past. This is another.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

The SCOTUS has been responsible to very wrong decisions in the past. This is another.

So far nobody has been able to take down Roe v. Wade despite yearly challenges. Whether the ruling is right or wrong is subjective but it seems like according to American law it's pretty iron clad. Better than the mob making oppressive laws based on emotional appeals.

 

[year2late]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

And I wish the pro-choice side would learn to keep a consistent view on the difference between what is right and what is legal.

I have an opinion on what the law should be based on when human life begins. It is consistent. That view has me opposed to both abortion and when a man becomes responsible for a child he helped conceive that are logically consistent.

But many pro-choice people will argue that the legality of abortion is the final answer while freely arguing against court rulings on any number of other cases not related to abortion.

And thank you for stating it as an opinion.

I have no issue with someone saying they think a zygote,embryo,or fetus SHOULD have the rights of a person. I may not agree, but I accept personal opinion.

I believe that as long as the zygote,embryo, or fetus is dependent fully on the physiology of the woman that it should lack those rights.

I believe more is to be gained by assuring women have access to the best possible birth control (long acting seem to have the best track record) .

I also believe that it is not impossible to turn an unwanted pregnancy into a wanted one. But that means decent health care assured....and the abilty for the mother (and father for that matter) to believe that they can have hope of consistent employment and a safe roof over their heads.

I am personally opposed to abortion, but damn...I wish people would be more pragmatic about their approach to the issue.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Indeed. That is largely due to the difficulty in doing a paternity test on the unborn person early in their development without killing them in the process.

All you need is a blood sample from the pregnant woman and the man in question.

https://dna-testing.ca/article/a-paternity-test-from-the-9th-week-of-pregnancy.html

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Unless you feel that she is carrying a human life, in which case it would be the highest degree of moral conclusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And how do arrive at human life is the supreme form of life over all other forms of life? Or that a yet to be born human life has equality with the born human life?

Humanity isn't anywhere near being an endangered species.

Human life dies at every possible stage of existence - caused by every possible reason inside and outside the control of humanity. Humanity isn't near as intelligent and civilized as it believes itself to be. Consequently, there is no right to life - at any stage.

Humanity has done a lousy job at ending the suffering and needless deaths of the born - on a global scale.

Why in the world do you support a government telling women how many children that they have or don't have?

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

LOL! The amount of scientific ignorance on the pro-choice side is truly amazing. Yes, two things that are do not qualify as living organisms combine to create a living organism. Welcome to Biology 101.
.

So they are not living? Good to know.

No, conception is the only specifically non-arbitrary point for the start of the life of a new human organism.

But a conception it is nothing more than cells dividing. And you just claimed cells are not alive.

Again, you have no clue as the the concepts of biology, or the reason for differentiating a skin cell from a paramecium, or a skin cell from a the earliest stages of human life.

While you simply make an arbitrary distinction because otherwise it is obvious that the distinction is nothing more than a red herring for the pro life group.

My position is it isn't the child's fault on how it was conceived so it shouldn't have to pay with its life

So you would force a woman to give birth to child produced by rape or incest ?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

This is incorrect for the same reason that you cannot withhold other life essentials from your child

IGNORANTLY FALSE. An unborn human is very different from a child, and should never be called a child. It is a child-under-construction, and cannot do anything an ordinary child does until the construction project is finished and birth happens --just like a house-under-construction is very different from a completed house in which one is able to reside.

ALSO, an unborn human is not a person. You have the right to withhold life essentials from non-persons, like say a fox that gets into your back yard, trying to catch a pet rabbit. It is a very common IDIOCY of abortion opponents to equate "human life" with "person", when it is so-easily proved that the two concepts are very different from each other and have nothing to do with each other.
(A) we Formally Recognize that it is possible for non-human persons to exist.
(B) Known types of "human life" that do not qualify as persons include: (1) cuticle cells, (2) hydatidiform moles, (3) VERIFIED brain-dead adults on life-support, and (4) our unborn.

and claim that they were "not his/hers".

SINCE UNBORN HUMANS ARE NOT PERSONS, they can qualify as "property", and thus can also be called "hers" (but not "his). A pregnant woman is generally free to do what she chooses to her property. (Limits apply if she wants to give birth to a healthy baby, however, because then it becomes a person and might have a valid legal complaint about how his/her body was treated in the womb.)

I cannot remove food and water from my home and let my child die,

NOW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ORDINARY CHILDREN THAT QUALIFY AS PERSONS. We all agree with you, about that.

I INVITE YOU TO CONSIDER AN ADVANCED HOME COMPUTER OF A FEW DECADES FROM NOW. Out of the box it might come with a limited set of software, just like today's computers. It will have the capability to run other types of software, just like today's computers. Also like today's computers, it can almost certainly be upgraded to handle advanced software. One such type of software, not yet existing (but expected to exist in a few decades), COULD give your computer the power of a True Artificial Intelligence, fully equivalent to an ordinary human person. Can you imagine a Law requiring you to upgrade your computer's hardware, and to obtain and install that type of software, JUST BECAUSE your nice new bare-bones computer happens to be upgrade-able to have the power to run it?

THE HUMAN BRAIN IS A COMPUTER. In the womb (and actually for significant time after birth) it is a computer-under-construction. About age 1.5 (yes, after birth) that computer becomes powerful enough to START running certain subsets of personhood software (which it writes for itself as it interacts with the world of human culture --provided it is actually exposed to the world of human culture). The upgrade process is NOT a sure thing! Prior to birth it is literally impossible for any unborn human brain to process any aspect of personhood software. A woman getting an abortion is basically telling the world that she has no interest in having that unborn computer get upgraded.

I can hardly wait to see how abortion opponents reconcile their desire to force owned and unwanted human brains to upgrade, while resisting forced upgrades to computers they will own in the future....

and justify it by claiming that those items were uniquely mine, thus I had a right to remove them.

YOUR PROPERTY CAN COME WITH CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS. If you don't care for your house, the City might condemn it as inadequately habitable. You are expected to care for your pets. You are expected to care for ACTUAL children. A pregnant woman is expected to care HER unborn womb-occupant PROVIDED she wants it to get born. She is NOT, however, expected to want it to get born! Because abortion is legal, after all!

 

[Bodi]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Unless you feel that she is carrying a human life, in which case it would be the highest degree of moral conclusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She is carrying a human life and that is irrelevant.

There is nothing moral about mandating that she remain pregnant against her will.

In fact, it is completely immoral to force her to remain pregnant.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Humanity isn't anywhere near being an endangered species.

Some would say that is unfortunate. We have wrecked havoc on the planet and there are too many humans on it.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

She is carrying a human life and that is irrelevant.

There is nothing moral about mandating that she remain pregnant against her will.

In fact, it is completely immoral to force her to remain pregnant.

I totally agree. Being human life does not mean the woman should be compelled by law to gestate it. No human life should get to live inside of and attached to someone against their will. Before anyone (not you, Bodhi) says it, no, consent to sex is NOT agreeing to gestate and give birth should a pregnancy occur.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I totally agree. Being human life does not mean the woman should be compelled by law to gestate it. No human life should get to live inside of and attached to someone against their will. Before anyone (not you, Bodhi) says it, no, consent to sex is NOT agreeing to gestate and give birth should a pregnancy occur.

Agreed. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and even consent to pregnancy does not mean consent to carry pregnancy to full term.

A woman that wants to get pregnant and then turns around and wants to terminate the pregnancy has every moral and legal right to do so...

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Agreed. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and even consent to pregnancy does not mean consent to carry pregnancy to full term.

A woman that wants to get pregnant and then turns around and wants to terminate the pregnancy has every moral and legal right to do so...

If she wants to terminate the pregnancy one week before she's due to give birth to a healthy full-term infant -- and the pregnancy is not threatening her health, does she still have "every moral and legal right to do so?"

Or, are those rights actually regulated?

 

[minnie616]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Indeed. That is largely due to the difficulty in doing a paternity test on the unborn person early in their development without killing them in the process. But men should be held responsible from the moment that a paternity test is possible and proves the baby is his.

Most states already have laws protecting the lives of the unborn, so it's amazing that we don't see more move to hold these deadbeats responsible.

There are non invasive paternity tests that determine paternity within the first trimester of pregnancy.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

If she wants to terminate the pregnancy one week before she's due to give birth to a healthy full-term infant -- and the pregnancy is not threatening her health, does she still have "every moral and legal right to do so?"

Or, are those rights actually regulated?

I don't support abortion past 24 weeks... or viability.

That said how many women have aborted a healthy baby when the women's health is not at risk at 40 weeks? Do you have stats on that?

 

[minnie616]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

The SCOTUS has been responsible to very wrong decisions in the past. This is another.

Roe v Wade has been reaffirmed many times.
It is precedent and it is settled law.

Now move forward.

Trumps Surpreme Court pick agrees that Roe v Wade is prescedent.....
In plain English ...that's means it is law....That law is set in stone.
It will not be questioned.

From this Fox News article:

Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent' | Fox News

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

If she wants to terminate the pregnancy one week before she's due to give birth to a healthy full-term infant -- and the pregnancy is not threatening her health, does she still have "every moral and legal right to do so?"

Or, are those rights actually regulated?

They aren't regulated here, yet nobody is terminating that late.

I'd like to see just ONE example of a woman terminating at 39 weeks for reasons other than maternal health/life or severe fetal anomaly.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I don't support abortion past 24 weeks... or viability.

That said how many women have aborted a healthy baby when the women's health is not at risk at 40 weeks? Do you have stats on that?

I was responding to your comment -- "A woman that wants to get pregnant and then turns around and wants to terminate the pregnancy has every moral and legal right to do so."

Now, I find that you don't believe she has that moral or legal right if the fetus is viable.

We both know very few women abort past that stage, and virtually all that do probably have a health issue, or the baby has a health issue.

I just found that your comment warranted further examination.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

They aren't regulated here, yet nobody is terminating that late.

I'd like to see just ONE example of a woman terminating at 39 weeks for reasons other than maternal health/life or severe fetal anomaly.

So you've told us before -- that Canada does not restrict abortion -- but didn't you also tell us that it would be difficult to find a doctor that would perform one? If that's true, it's a restriction on a woman, although that restriction might not come from the law.

I've agree with you, ad nauseum, that late-term abortions are very rare, but you continue to bring that up as if it is an argument against regulation at that stage.

It's not -- it's just a side-step.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I was responding to your comment -- "A woman that wants to get pregnant and then turns around and wants to terminate the pregnancy has every moral and legal right to do so."

Now, I find that you don't believe she has that moral or legal right if the fetus is viable.

We both know very few women abort past that stage, and virtually all that do probably have a health issue, or the baby has a health issue.

I just found that your comment warranted further examination.

Okay?

Not sure what the conclusion is then...

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Okay?

Not sure what the conclusion is then...

The conclusion is that you do NOT believe "a woman that wants to get pregnant and then turns around and wants to terminate the pregnancy has every moral and legal right to do so."

It's really that simple.

Words matter.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

So you've told us before -- that Canada does not restrict abortion -- but didn't you also tell us that it would be difficult to find a doctor that would perform one? If that's true, it's a restriction on a woman, although that restriction might not come from the law.

I've agree with you, ad nauseum, that late-term abortions are very rare, but you continue to bring that up as if it is an argument against regulation at that stage.

It's not -- it's just a side-step.

No, it is not a sidestep. If it isn't happening, why should there be more laws created? We have way too much govt. interference in our lives.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

The conclusion is that you do NOT believe "a woman that wants to get pregnant and then turns around and wants to terminate the pregnancy has every moral and legal right to do so."

It's really that simple.

Words matter.

They do. Try reading them sgain. Then explain your conclusion.