Argument in favor of pro-choice/abortion

[Vadinho]

Re: Roe v. Wade is the law

Originally Posted by Vadinho
At the core of this issue is the difficulty in defining what is a human being. I can think of no definition that encompasses all the possible ethical, biological, moral and legal quandaries the definition should cover. In fact, this lack of clarity is why the third trimester limit was placed into the law. For lack of any better option, viability became the dividing line. If any of us think defining a human being is easy, you have not thought about it enough.



The Pro-lifers tend to argue from religious dogma - which is interesting, but completely misses the point. In the US, we live in a deliberately secular state - the Founding Fathers had seen quite enough bloodshed over whether one opens a hardboiled egg @ the big or little end, & so on. So they did away with established religion altogether, & allowed no religious test for elected nor appointed officials. People are free to argue from their relgious POV if they wish to do so, of course. & if they manage to convince a majority, then perhaps they can pass legislation to accommodate their view.

To date, the various anti-abortion groups don't have the numbers. The Constitution can be amended, but it was deliberately made a difficult process. Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, most US voters seem to accept Roe as useful law, just in case the need arises - either in their personal family life, or in the lives of other citizens out in the world.

As I recall, the Supreme Court in 1972 looked into traditional & current Christian & Jewish views on when the fetus can be aborted, & when ensoulment takes place. They may have also looked @ other religious traditions - I know that SC Justice Blackmun was general counsel for the Mayo Clinic for most of a decade, & he spent the summer of 1972 @ the Mayo Clinic library, reviewing the books & articles on the history & practice of abortion (in order to write the Court's opinion). The SC passed on deciding when life began - the issue was too contentious. That is interesting history in & of itself, & well worth looking into.

I noticed that a recent decision by a court ruled that a woman does have the right to an abortion but not the right to demand a doctor can perform one.

 

[Vadinho]

Re: Roe v. Wade is the law

:shock:

WHAT? Are you saying, an offspring of a human couple isn't human?




:roll:

Whether the baby is deaf.....or has four arms......or, no arms at all......even if the baby is brain dead - NEVERTHELESS, the baby is still human!

What, you think Siamese twins are not human? Just because they are born attached to each other?

Do you think Siamese twins are two or one human? I would argue that because there are two brains, they are two human beings.

 

[tosca1]

One of the first things I said was "A fetus in the womb is undeniably human." A fetus is human, and I'm not debating with you on that, because I agree. I just don't think it has human rights, which I summed up with the word "person hood." Non-human animals have rights to, just not the same rights as a human, thus, they don"t have person hood. For instance, murdering a human reaps far more consequences than killing a dog. To clarify, that was all I meant. Thank you for your response!

Personhood (being a person), still defines the person as a human! That term doesn't change that.

According to Oxforddictionaries:

Personhood
The quality or condition of being an individual person.


Of course, animals aren't human, that's why they don't have the same rights and privileges that humans have. Just the treatment of, and caring for animals doesn't go anywhere near the treatment, and care for humans.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Roe v. Wade is the law

Originally Posted by Vadinho
At the core of this issue is the difficulty in defining what is a human being. I can think of no definition that encompasses all the possible ethical, biological, moral and legal quandaries the definition should cover. In fact, this lack of clarity is why the third trimester limit was placed into the law. For lack of any better option, viability became the dividing line. If any of us think defining a human being is easy, you have not thought about it enough.



The Pro-lifers tend to argue from religious dogma - which is interesting, but completely misses the point. In the US, we live in a deliberately secular state - the Founding Fathers had seen quite enough bloodshed over whether one opens a hardboiled egg @ the big or little end, & so on. So they did away with established religion altogether, & allowed no religious test for elected nor appointed officials. People are free to argue from their relgious POV if they wish to do so, of course. & if they manage to convince a majority, then perhaps they can pass legislation to accommodate their view.

To date, the various anti-abortion groups don't have the numbers. The Constitution can be amended, but it was deliberately made a difficult process. Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, most US voters seem to accept Roe as useful law, just in case the need arises - either in their personal family life, or in the lives of other citizens out in the world.

As I recall, the Supreme Court in 1972 looked into traditional & current Christian & Jewish views on when the fetus can be aborted, & when ensoulment takes place. They may have also looked @ other religious traditions - I know that SC Justice Blackmun was general counsel for the Mayo Clinic for most of a decade, & he spent the summer of 1972 @ the Mayo Clinic library, reviewing the books & articles on the history & practice of abortion (in order to write the Court's opinion). The SC passed on deciding when life began - the issue was too contentious. That is interesting history in & of itself, & well worth looking into.

The Supreme Court did take the Religious views of the Jewish faith and a large segment of Protestant Christians in Part IX of Roe v Wade.

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]

 

[southwest88]

Clarifying

Originally Posted by southwest88
If everything goes right [in the pregnancy], & there are no outside influences - drugs, alcohol, accident - there are still a substantial number (15 to 25%) of spontaneous miscarriages. (Drugs, BTW, includes things like Thalidomide, as well as doses of recreational drugs; & then there's Fetal Alcohol Syndrome - heavy drinking has enormous & permanent impacts on the fetus.)
end quote/

:shock:

WHAT? Are you saying, an offspring of a human couple isn't human?

:roll:

Whether the baby is deaf.....or has four arms......or, no arms at all......even if the baby is brain dead - NEVERTHELESS, the baby is still human!

What, you think Siamese twins are not human? Just because they are born attached to each other?

offspring - No, I was pointing out that fetuses die, sometimes for no apparent reason.

baby is still human - If a fetus miscarries early on, it's typically for genetic or developmental reasons. In blunter language, the fetus might not even look human. So count your blessings. If the development of the fetus is severely out of phase, the pregnancy likely terminates because communication between the fetal & the woman's biochemistry goes out of synch or fails altogether.

 

[southwest88]

Details?

I noticed that a recent decision by a court ruled that a woman does have the right to an abortion but not the right to demand a doctor can perform one.

That's strange. Where & when did that happen? Do you have a source for that?

 

[Lursa]

So your position is that only after the child has exited the womb that one has a responsibility to it, rather than responsibility for it's original creation?

On child support, why does the man not get the same reproductive rights in regards to child support? For instance, if a woman wants to abdicate her responsibility of the child she can have an abortion. However should a man decide he does not want the child after conception then he is at the mercy of the women's decision regardless of his feelings on the matter. If a man would prefer she has an abortion then he should be able to let her know that should she decide to have the child he will not be responsible for it. (For the record, I would view him as a POS should he do this but a man should have the same reproductive rights as a woman).

He has the same ability to avoid a pregnancy as a woman does...deciding before sex. The consequences afterwards are different due to biology but still there are consequences that BOTH are well aware of.

Men know that IF there is a pregnancy, the woman has the decision solely on her own unless she decides to include him.

Women know that IF there is a pregnancy, there is NO escape from consequences. There are only 4 outcomes but ALL cost a woman dearly:

--she has a baby
--she has a miscarriage
--she has an abortion
--she dies during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die from the 1st 3 as well.

So both have their consequences and know that if they are not willing to accept those consequences, they shouldnt risk having sex. Do you agree? If not, why not?

 

[nobody1875]

Personhood (being a person), still defines the person as a human! That term doesn't change that.

According to Oxforddictionaries:

Personhood
The quality or condition of being an individual person.


Of course, animals aren't human, that's why they don't have the same rights and privileges that humans have. Just the treatment of, and caring for animals doesn't go anywhere near the treatment, and care for humans.

I think you and I are defining "person hood" differently. When I say "person hood", I mean that it is a conscious being that can feel emotional and or physical suffering. That is what we normally give "person hood" to. Currently, we only give that to humans, because we are the only being that we know of that has our level of consciousness and self-awareness. It does not inherently mean "human". If we invented a self-aware A.I, or gorillas suddenly became able communicate with us on our level, even if they weren't as smart as us, I think they should still be protected and granted some level of person hood. But a fetus that isn't developed enough to feel physical or emotional pain does not have person hood, even if it is human. Thus, abortion isn't murder and should remain a constitutional right.

 

[Vadinho]

Re: Details?

That's strange. Where & when did that happen? Do you have a source for that?

I can't find it but I am pretty sure it was in the mid-west. Essentially the court ruled that laws restricting doctors that end up leaving no doctors in the state capable of performing an abortion is fine and dandy. A woman can just go to another state. I will keep searching for it, the court was packed with Trump picks. Here it is...Ohio and PP

Appeals court upholds Ohio law to defund Planned Parenthood clinics | TheHill

Eleven judges on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an Ohio law prohibiting state health department funding from going to any provider who offers “non-therapeutic abortions” does not violate the Constitution, “because the affiliates do not have a due process right to perform abortions.”

 

[AGENT J]

Hello! I've been researching a lot about abortions and such recently, trying to formulate a coherent and consistent opinion on the matter, and I'd like to see how my current stance holds up to scrutiny. My opinions are:

A fetus in the womb is undeniably human.
It may mostly look like a baby, just really small.
It may have its own DNA, and be a separate entity from the mother.
It may have a heartbeat.
It is alive.
However, it does not, nor should it, have personhood and rights.
"Alive" should not automatically mean "person".
The capacity to suffer should be the determining factor of personhood.
Non-human animals are not considered a "person" because even though they are alive, they do not have the self-awareness and capacity to suffer as a human does.
My dog is alive, but is not a "person".
The cow that is on my dinner plate in the form of beef was alive, but never a person.
The tree outside is alive but is not a person.
Humans have the highest awareness and capacity to suffer, therefore we have the most rights and "personhood".
The potential for personhood does not equal current personhood.
Personhood should be granted to the things that suffer from the lack of it, such as self-aware creatures that can feel emotional and or physical pain.

Therefore, a fetus that is not developed enough to feel pain or suffering does not have personhood. Thus, abortion is not wrong.

Does this sound like a good argument?

arguments depend on what you are arguing against.
not sure what you are arguing against, meaning i dont know why some of your claims matter

for my own stance it doesnt matter what arguments there are out there. it stands on its own merit and is based on facts not feelings.

FACTS:
there is no way to give both the woman and the baby equal rights
EVERYBODY views either the baby or the woman as a lesser the only difference is when and why

based on those facts i am im prochoice because ill never support violating the womans legal rights and the law treating her has a lesser vs an unknown entity that could abort itself.
now my view is also based on RvW and im fine with a 24 week cap (based on 50% viability) and with allowed exceptions and would be willing to go as low as 20/21 weeks (based on earliest possible viability) while still keeping the exceptions.

in most cases i choose the woman over the unknown and view the unknown as the lesser, after 24 weeks that changes some and changes more as time goes on.

 

[trouble13]

Good point! I don't think I like the idea that someone could be charged with a murder that they didn't willingly commit, even if they did kill the woman. If she wasn't noticeably pregnant, and the assailant didn't know she was pregnant, then I think it depends on the wishes of the family if the assailant is charged extra or not. If the woman intended to keep the baby, and was robbed of that choice, as was the father or invested family members, then I think it is justified to press extra charges. I think something like that has nothing to do with the rights of the unborn baby, but everything to do with what will give closure to the grieving family. It's about the rights of those who live on, who are suffering a loss, and not the unborn baby.

You jist argued in your op that the fetus has no rights to personhood. What are you gonna charge that 3rd party with even if they killed the baby on purpose. You just argued the fetus has no rights of personhood.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Feticide laws are state rights and states can protect a fetus who has no rights
Just like States can also protect animals ( who have no rights ) with state anti cruelty to animals laws.

Your appeal to authority is wonderful and all but we are not talk8ng about the current laws. The OP asked us to challenge his position so he can test how well it stands up to scrutiny. I am honoring his request.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[southwest88]

On to the next higher court

I can't find it but I am pretty sure it was in the mid-west. Essentially the court ruled that laws restricting doctors that end up leaving no doctors in the state capable of performing an abortion is fine and dandy. A woman can just go to another state. I will keep searching for it, the court was packed with Trump picks. Here it is...Ohio and PP

Appeals court upholds Ohio law to defund Planned Parenthood clinics | TheHill

Eleven judges on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an Ohio law prohibiting state health department funding from going to any provider who offers “non-therapeutic abortions” does not violate the Constitution, “because the affiliates do not have a due process right to perform abortions.”

Thanks. I expect the state of Ohio can anticipate an appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

[Vadinho]

Re: On to the next higher court

Thanks. I expect the state of Ohio can anticipate an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Yes but you never know. Blows me away that these people just never give up.

 

[Idiometer]

Hello! I've been researching a lot about abortions and such recently, trying to formulate a coherent and consistent opinion on the matter, and I'd like to see how my current stance holds up to scrutiny. My opinions are:

A fetus in the womb is undeniably human.
It may mostly look like a baby, just really small.
It may have its own DNA, and be a separate entity from the mother.
It may have a heartbeat.
It is alive.
However, it does not, nor should it, have personhood and rights.
"Alive" should not automatically mean "person".
The capacity to suffer should be the determining factor of personhood.
Non-human animals are not considered a "person" because even though they are alive, they do not have the self-awareness and capacity to suffer as a human does.
My dog is alive, but is not a "person".
The cow that is on my dinner plate in the form of beef was alive, but never a person.
The tree outside is alive but is not a person.
Humans have the highest awareness and capacity to suffer, therefore we have the most rights and "personhood".
The potential for personhood does not equal current personhood.
Personhood should be granted to the things that suffer from the lack of it, such as self-aware creatures that can feel emotional and or physical pain.

Therefore, a fetus that is not developed enough to feel pain or suffering does not have personhood. Thus, abortion is not wrong.

Does this sound like a good argument?

It's a thoughtful argument.

Most people think that the Roe v Wade decision was about whether or not abortion is legal. It wasn't. It was about our constitutional right to privacy under the 4th Amendment and whether or not that right extends to a woman's pregnancy. It does, according to the Supreme Court.

So, the only valid argument is, do you think a woman's pregnancy is anyone else's business, along with her choice on whether or not to terminate the pregnancy?

 

[Idiometer]

Clever arguments tend to go nowhere with abortion debates, mostly because it's a subjectively moral issue. The laws we have on the books are the best we can do under the circumstances. I consider abortion a necessary evil given the current rate of humanity's sociological maturity combined with the alternative of having unchecked, rampant unwanted childbirth on a global scale. It's an established fact at every level of government that the more reproductive control women have, the higher the standard of living increases in the surrounding society. We can't just ignore that. Filling the world with unwanted children leads to widespread deleterious effects on living conditions for everyone.

Like I said... necessary evil. Maybe at some point in an idyllic future, humans will never get pregnant unless they're in a perfect position to be parents. Until then, we have to look at the holistic good of society, and not cater to one group of individuals who have a very specific moral belief. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

But then... the people who are against abortion also tend to be against birth control because they also find recreational sex immoral. So, there's no real winning.

And pregnancy is always HER fault. Don't leave that out.

 

[Idiometer]

I am not pro choice. I do not care about "a woman's right to choose" to dispense with a nuisance pregnancy, caused probably by fornication.

I am in favor of abortion because it has eugenic benefits. Females most likely to have abortions are least likely to have anything beneficial to contribute to the gene pool.

Needless to say, I am not pro life either.

Whether or not a pregnancy is a "nuisance," or perhaps a danger to the woman's health, is none of your business, and something you wouldn't know unless she chose to confide in you, which, given the hatefulness of your comment, seems unlikey. And yet, you come here and judge who should or should not reproduce. I've never read a more pompous or misogynistic comment on any forum.

 

[Idiometer]

Why are you for eugenics?

Because he's pompous and hates women? I'm guessing incel. Should maybe change his user name from Smartcat to Scared*****.

 

[bongsaway]

Abortion is legal, what's the argument?

 

[Lursa]

Re: Roe v. Wade is the law

I noticed that a recent decision by a court ruled that a woman does have the right to an abortion but not the right to demand a doctor can perform one.

I dont think a Dr can be compelled to perform any procedure they dont believe in. If it's a life and death emergency, perhaps the law does have impact on that, not sure.

They may have contractual agreements with a hospital or other facility, but that's an employment contract and a Dr would/should consider those things when accepting the position.

 

[nobody1875]

You jist argued in your op that the fetus has no rights to personhood. What are you gonna charge that 3rd party with even if they killed the baby on purpose. You just argued the fetus has no rights of personhood.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The charge depends on how far along the development of the baby is. Some time in the second trimester, the fetus develops enough to feel pain. When that milestone is reached, I think it should have rights, and I think charging the criminal with a double murder is justified. The police and or government should be allowed to press charges. But the specifics should be determined by the affected party and what they decide will give them the most closure. If they don't want to press charges, then they shouldn't have to. If the baby didn't reach person hood yet, but the family wanted the baby, and pressing charges will give them closure, then they should be free to do so.

 

[nobody1875]

Abortion is legal, what's the argument?

I wish it were that simple. Abortion is legal, but people are fighting hard to make it illegal again, and they are somewhat winning. Pro-lifers are placing such burdensome restrictions and regulations on abortion clinics that many have had to shut down. Last I heard, there were seven states with only one abortion clinic left. The constitution is not being upheld. It may already be legal, but now people need to fight to *keep* it legal.

 

[bongsaway]

I wish it were that simple. Abortion is legal, but people are fighting hard to make it illegal again, and they are somewhat winning. Pro-lifers are placing such burdensome restrictions and regulations on abortion clinics that many have had to shut down. Last I heard, there were seven states with only one abortion clinic left. The constitution is not being upheld. It may already be legal, but now people need to fight to *keep* it legal.

Guns and abortion are two of the very few things the GOP has that they can act like they care about and it gives them two groups of single issue voters. The amount of abortion threads on here tells you the right will never stop trying to end abortions in america. If we're going to invoke christian law in america, does that mean all liars will be stoned to death?

 

[Idiometer]

Maybe I'm wrong about abortion.This makes sense.If liberals were aloud to multiply like rabbits we would be doomed.

We multiply aloud? Name one woman in history who remained silent during labor and delivery who wasn't a mute to begin with. Of course it's aloud.

Oh, wait ... did you mean allowed? Sorry, I keep forgetting that righties are often uneducated.

:slapme:

 

[Idiometer]

here's why it isn't a good argument:

Putting "person" in quotations does not mean the fetus is not human. The offspring of a human couple
(no matter what stage of development he is), can only be a......human.

The definition of a person is...... a human.

Stripping a human of his humanity, does not make him less human.
That's what Hitler did with the Jews - to make it acceptable to annihilate them, the same way the slavers did to Black people - to make it acceptable to treat them inhumanely.


Whenever someone tries to diminish a person's humanity -

you bet, it's because they know what they're about to do is EVIL.

They're going to do something that shouldn't be done to a human being.





Your dog is alive, and it's not a person.....but it does still have rights, right?
Go ahead, see what happens if you kill a dog on youtube.
You'll likely have to go into hiding yourself.

Whether the fetus feels pain or not, is not the point. He is a human being!
He has every right like you and I.

The definition of a person: a human being regarded as an individual. That isn't quite the same thing as just human.