[W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

[year2late]

The caterpillar is not the same as a fetus. A fetus is required to use the organs and sustenance another body provides. One thing that has always amused me about anti-abortion advocates, or pro birthers, I should say, is that they are so focused on the short term goal they miss what the outcome of their policies would be.

Tell me, where does it end? At abortion? Since abortion exists to protect mothers from having their bodies used by a fetus (note, not a person, as personhood is required for rights to function), what would stop, for example, organ donors from using the precedent to force all deceased people to have to donate their organs on death?

I think they are short sighted as well. I would like to see abortion rates decreased myself. Prevention is better.

So let us say they get their goal of reversing R v W. Let us say that every state made abortion illegal (mind you neither of these things will happen)/ What will happen? No back alley abortions required. The pregnant woman will go to the local drug pusher and they will have the abortion pills. I argue that since there are tens of thousand more drug pushers than abortion clinics, that it is possible that abortions will be MORE available than ever - just not as safe .I also would argue that it is possible that it is more than probable that disgruntled boyfriends will start dosing their pregnant girlfriend.

If they played the pragmatic long game, they would realize how to prevent abortions is by prevention of unwanted pregnancy. That means improving and making more financially accessible long term forms of contraception and developing better options for men. If they played the pragmatic long game they would realize WHY women have abortions. They are idiots to keep talking about trivial inconveniences. It minimizes the real issues a woman has during pregnancy. Most women who choose abortion are poor or working poor with substandard access to health care. Many are housing and job insecure. While the party that 'champions" reversal of R V W, they fail to champion for social safety nets that would make a woman feel more comfortable making the decision to maintain her pregnancy.

Many flippantly talk about "just adopting the baby out" as if they pregnancy in and of itself is not a risk to health and potentially employment prospects which could lead to loss of a safe place to live.
If they took a more "pro-lifespan" stance and less of a "pro-fetus" stance...they might have more luck drastically decreasing abortion rates.

 

[KevinKohler]

A single Monarch caterpillar and resulting butterfly are the same species, and indeed the same individual. A caterpillar is not a collection of Danaus plexippus cells, but an individual of the Danaus plexippus species.

We can certainly consider the caterpillar to be less worthy of life, by virtue of having less capabilities, being a "burden", and having not reached the butterfly stage. But we can not deny that it is an individual of Danaus plexippus.

Human =/= human being

 

[Obscurity]

I think they are short sighted as well. I would like to see abortion rates decreased myself. Prevention is better.

So let us say they get their goal of reversing R v W. Let us say that every state made abortion illegal (mind you neither of these things will happen)/ What will happen? No back alley abortions required. The pregnant woman will go to the local drug pusher and they will have the abortion pills. I argue that since there are tens of thousand more drug pushers than abortion clinics, that it is possible that abortions will be MORE available than ever - just not as safe .I also would argue that it is possible that it is more than probable that disgruntled boyfriends will start dosing their pregnant girlfriend.

If they played the pragmatic long game, they would realize how to prevent abortions is by prevention of unwanted pregnancy. That means improving and making more financially accessible long term forms of contraception and developing better options for men. If they played the pragmatic long game they would realize WHY women have abortions. They are idiots to keep talking about trivial inconveniences. It minimizes the real issues a woman has during pregnancy. Most women who choose abortion are poor or working poor with substandard access to health care. Many are housing and job insecure. While the party that 'champions" reversal of R V W, they fail to champion for social safety nets that would make a woman feel more comfortable making the decision to maintain her pregnancy.

Many flippantly talk about "just adopting the baby out" as if they pregnancy in and of itself is not a risk to health and potentially employment prospects which could lead to loss of a safe place to live.
If they took a more "pro-lifespan" stance and less of a "pro-fetus" stance...they might have more luck drastically decreasing abortion rates.

They do not care about reducing abortion rates. They simply are vindictive, ruthless people who want to penalize women for doing with their bodies what they will. Make no mistake, the hubris of men is the cause of this; our misunderstanding and desire to control the "basket of life" that is the uterus, as it is uniquely feminine and has nothing at all to do with men.

 

[Rickeroo]

The caterpillar is not the same as a fetus. A fetus is required to use the organs and sustenance another body provides. One thing that has always amused me about anti-abortion advocates, or pro birthers, I should say, is that they are so focused on the short term goal they miss what the outcome of their policies would be.

Tell me, where does it end? At abortion? Since abortion exists to protect mothers from having their bodies used by a fetus (note, not a person, as personhood is required for rights to function), what would stop, for example, organ donors from using the precedent to force all deceased people to have to donate their organs on death?

"...that another body provides" is along the less capabilities / burden argument. A toddler is also less capable and a burden to the parents, or more often in today's society, parent in the singular. Forcing donation of one's organ's after death, if an extension of a pro-life theme, is a fairly small price to pay. The alternative "pro choice" theme requires one sacrifice their life at a very early stage.

 

[Obscurity]

"...that another body provides" is along the less capabilities / burden argument. A toddler is also less capable and a burden to the parents, or more often in today's society, parent in the singular. Forcing donation of one's organ's after death, if an extension of a pro-life theme, is a fairly small price to pay. The alternative "pro choice" theme requires one sacrifice their life at a very early stage.

Forcing one to donate their organs is an authoritarian req that would invert religious rights; since some religions do not believe you go to the afterlife they promise if you are missing body parts.

 

[Lursa]

"...that another body provides" is along the less capabilities / burden argument. A toddler is also less capable and a burden to the parents, or more often in today's society, parent in the singular. Forcing donation of one's organ's after death, if an extension of a pro-life theme, is a fairly small price to pay. The alternative "pro choice" theme requires one sacrifice their life at a very early stage.

But no one's rights are violated to care for the toddler. Anyone can care for the toddler, but you cannot act on the unborn without the consent of the mother (without due process).

The unborn are demonstrably, not 'equal' to born people, and that is the standard under our Constitution.

The unborn is physiologically intertwined with the woman and cannot exercise a single right independently. That dependency truly shows the unborn is not equal.

 

[Rickeroo]

Forcing one to donate their organs is an authoritarian req that would invert religious rights; since some religions do not believe you go to the afterlife they promise if you are missing body parts.

Correct. My theory was based on the premise: "if" forced donation of body parts after death was an extension of the pro-life argument. In thinking about this, it's possible that the lack of available body parts for transplant may indirectly cause someone to die. This requires a biological failure of the organ first: a two step non-invasive process. Organ failure, then failure to implant a forced body part results in death.

 

[Rickeroo]

But no one's rights are violated to care for the toddler. Anyone can care for the toddler, but you cannot act on the unborn without the consent of the mother (without due process).

The unborn are demonstrably, not 'equal' to born people, and that is the standard under our Constitution.

The unborn is physiologically intertwined with the woman and cannot exercise a single right independently. That dependency truly shows the unborn is not equal.

I'd submit that the mother's rights are violated to care for the toddler. Without the toddler, the mother is free to be a deadbeat. If the mother fails to care for the toddler, she can be jailed for 'child neglect'. The burden of care is placed on her.

"Not equal" does not equate to "kill on demand". The Constitution would hold that a Somali citizen has less rights than an American citizen: the two are "not equal", and one is the lesser. This does not justify killing of the Somali.

 

[Obscurity]

I'd submit that the mother's rights are violated to care for the toddler. Without the toddler, the mother is free to be a deadbeat. If the mother fails to care for the toddler, she can be jailed for 'child neglect'. The burden of care is placed on her.

"Not equal" does not equate to "kill on demand". The Constitution would hold that a Somali citizen has less rights than an American citizen: the two are "not equal", and one is the lesser. This does not justify killing of the Somali.

The Somali has rights because it's a defined person. A fetus is not. Personhood is from whence rights are originated.

 

[Cougarbear]

Your nomenclature is incorrect. I am so tired of the right wing pushing the overton window further and further right with their hysteria.

Well, the liberal Democrats are for abortion at any state of the pregnancy. That's not a right wing anything. That's squarely on the liberal left Democrats. 60 million babies have been butchered since Roe v Wade. Sick, sick, sick...:2sick1:

 

[Obscurity]

Well, the liberal Democrats are for abortion at any state of the pregnancy. That's not a right wing anything. That's squarely on the liberal left Democrats. 60 million babies have been butchered since Roe v Wade. Sick, sick, sick...:2sick1:

1. They arent babies. Facts dont give a **** about you're feelings.

2. False. No democrat is pro abortion at 9 months and you know it.

Sorry, no more overton window shifting for you lot.

 

[Dick Tornado]

I went through some very intensive chemo 6 years ago, F**** cancer

I am amazed at how many "cures" are on the web.

If you dig into them you find that they are not cures but money generating hoaxes.

They thrive on taking advantage of people likely to die and therefore not likely to sue.

Friends sent me lots of these references with good intentions.

The sites will claim to be linked to John Hopkins or a certain cancer center which when researched turns out to be totally false.

These people should be tasered were it would hurt the most, once for every patient they deceived.

ZAP, ZAP, ZAP, stop because they passed out, they wake, ZAP, ZAP, ZAP

 

[Lursa]

I'd submit that the mother's rights are violated to care for the toddler. Without the toddler, the mother is free to be a deadbeat. If the mother fails to care for the toddler, she can be jailed for 'child neglect'. The burden of care is placed on her.

"Not equal" does not equate to "kill on demand". The Constitution would hold that a Somali citizen has less rights than an American citizen: the two are "not equal", and one is the lesser. This does not justify killing of the Somali.

She can put it up for adoption. And every state has "Safe Harbor" laws that enable mothers or fathers to drop kids off at designated places, no questions asked. Problem solved.

Nobody claimed the bold. But what justification would there be to protect the unborn at the expense of, in violation of, a woman's Constitutional rights? To imagine some rights for the unborn to protect would mean that women's rights would be superseded...making women 2nd class citizens again. And SCOTUS has already ruled on that.

 

[Rickeroo]

The Somali has rights because it's a defined person. A fetus is not. Personhood is from whence rights are originated.

Admittedly, I got caught in the trap of legally defined rights - the concept that we allow government to decide who is and isn't worthy of life. To follow this concept, we must agree that a Chinese citizen deserves less freedom than an American because the Chinese government says so.

Abortion is a simple matter for me. If I would advocate for my own abortion, or at the least accept it in a certain situation, then I'd also confer that pro-abortion stance for others. Let's say my mom told me she wished she aborted me. Therefore, based on her whim and "feelings", my life of 47 years and the sum total of my experiences are worthless and should have never happened, as defined by her. I should be ashamed of my life, burdening my mother like that. I should renounce my life at once, then kill myself.

In order to become pro-choice, that's what I'd have to believe in.

 

[Rickeroo]

She can put it up for adoption. And every state has "Safe Harbor" laws that enable mothers or fathers to drop kids off at designated places, no questions asked. Problem solved.

Nobody claimed the bold. But what justification would there be to protect the unborn at the expense of, in violation of, a woman's Constitutional rights? To imagine some rights for the unborn to protect would mean that women's rights would be superseded...making women 2nd class citizens again. And SCOTUS has already ruled on that.

There are certain situations where one life should be legally forfeit in favor of another. For example, the law says that a black man walking down the street has the same value as me - I can not take his life. However, take that same man and have him break into my house when my kids are home - I have a gun, and I take his life. It's the same man, different situation. His life is worth less - so much so that I can take his life without penalty.

In order for that to happen with abortion, it has to be life vs. life. If either the mother or the fetus has to die, then it would be the fetus. But to say that the mother can take the fetus's life on a whim? I don't buy into that concept, just like I can't buy into taking the black man's life on a whim.

 

[Quag]

I am amazed at how many "cures" are on the web.

If you dig into them you find that they are not cures but money generating hoaxes.

They thrive on taking advantage of people likely to die and therefore not likely to sue.

Friends sent me lots of these references with good intentions.

The sites will claim to be linked to John Hopkins or a certain cancer center which when researched turns out to be totally false.

These people should be tasered were it would hurt the most, once for every patient they deceived.

ZAP, ZAP, ZAP, stop because they passed out, they wake, ZAP, ZAP, ZAP

I got a lot of that. I just smiled and nodded and did or tried to do what my doctors told me.

 

[weaver2]

"Protection of unborn children"

This thread was inspired by exchanges with

minnie616, years2late, Lursa and Scrabaholic

--DP's Four Horsewomen of Abortion--

whose confusion concerning the nature and nomenclature of the human being in the womb

opened my eyes

--a newcomer to abortion debate--

opened my eyes

to the confusion at law

and to the cultural confusion

underlying the confusion of our Querulous Quartet.

The Law has confused them

and through them or the likes of them confused us or the likes of us.

This is how federal law defines that critter in mommy's belly:

18 U.S. Code 01841. Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a "child in utero," and the term "child in utero" or "child who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

18 U.S. Code SS 1841 - Protection of unborn children | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Are we all paying attention?

"a member of the species homo sapiens"

or as the federal law reads in another place:

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall...be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

I say, are we paying attention?

"a human being"

Now that we are aware of the legal and cultural confusion, please see Angel's clear and concise Pro-Life/Pro-Choice moral argument at
Abortion 101
Abortion 201
AP Abortion: Moral Responsibility

Think​

You forgot to post the last subsection to that law that says:

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
(Added Pub. L. 108–212, § 2(a), Apr. 1, 2004, 118 Stat. 568.)

 

[Scrabaholic]

There are certain situations where one life should be legally forfeit in favor of another. For example, the law says that a black man walking down the street has the same value as me - I can not take his life. However, take that same man and have him break into my house when my kids are home - I have a gun, and I take his life. It's the same man, different situation. His life is worth less - so much so that I can take his life without penalty.

In order for that to happen with abortion, it has to be life vs. life. If either the mother or the fetus has to die, then it would be the fetus. But to say that the mother can take the fetus's life on a whim? I don't buy into that concept, just like I can't buy into taking the black man's life on a whim.

The fetus is harming the woman, just like the man that broke into your house (hypothetically) is harming you. I don't know why you said black man, it could just as easily be a white man.

 

[Lursa]

There are certain situations where one life should be legally forfeit in favor of another. For example, the law says that a black man walking down the street has the same value as me - I can not take his life. However, take that same man and have him break into my house when my kids are home - I have a gun, and I take his life. It's the same man, different situation. His life is worth less - so much so that I can take his life without penalty.

In order for that to happen with abortion, it has to be life vs. life. If either the mother or the fetus has to die, then it would be the fetus. But to say that the mother can take the fetus's life on a whim? I don't buy into that concept, just like I can't buy into taking the black man's life on a whim.

We allow killing for all sorts of reasons. You just pointed out one: self-defense. We also allow it in war, for assisted suicide, for ending the life of some patients, in the death penalty, etc. The common factor here is justification.

All women who have abortions have justification that affects their lives, sacrifices to their health, responsibilities to their families (most women who have abortions have a least 1 child, elderly, disabled dependents), commitments & obligations to their employers, community, society, even their very lives. Every single pregnancy is a risk to a woman's life...it cannot be predicted.

Are you claiming that you or the govt know better than these women what their justifications are? That you are better able to 'judge' their lives and sacrifice and responsibilities?

If so, can you please explain why you value the unborn more than women? Because they cannot be treated equally under the law, its not possible. (If it is, please explain. I would be very interested in that.)

 

[Rickeroo]

The fetus is harming the woman, just like the man that broke into your house (hypothetically) is harming you. I don't know why you said black man, it could just as easily be a white man.

Black men would get more sympathy, so I used that race as an example. Harming the mother in what way? Sapping her strength, forcing her to eat more food? Weight gain? Harder to walk? These could certainly be looked upon as burdens.

If a black man were to be on welfare, some of my labor goes to paying that. I get stressed at work, which harms my well being. That black man's welfare is a measurable burden - a harm - on me. Can I kill him? If not kill, perhaps I could slap him hard across the face as punishment for harming my well being.

We could also apply the same theory to a woman's pregnancy. The fetus is being a bit presumptuous - greedy, if you will, by burdening the mother with various physical and mental strain. Rather than an abortion, perhaps there could be other punishments for the fetus for such an affront. Fining it a certain amount of money, garnishing its first few paychecks. Maybe a slap here or there.

 

[Rickeroo]

If so, can you please explain why you value the unborn more than women? Because they cannot be treated equally under the law, its not possible. (If it is, please explain. I would be very interested in that.)

I don't value the unborn more than a woman: the unborn is indeed lesser. To me, another person's child is of less importance than my child. A random Russian woman walking around in Moscow right now is less important than my wife. However, these entities, less though they be, do not deserve death unless they challenge the life of the more important.

 

[weaver2]

Well, the liberal Democrats are for abortion at any state of the pregnancy. That's not a right wing anything. That's squarely on the liberal left Democrats. 60 million babies have been butchered since Roe v Wade. Sick, sick, sick...:2sick1:

Here's what that 6M, that you do so much false weeping over, actually represent.

Reasons for getting an abortion (Guttmacher Institute)

Not ready for a child or another child ………….. 25%of 6M=1,500,000 babies not born into a situation where the a woman is not ready or can't take care of or doesn't want a child. The future of unplanned and unwanted children is not good.

Cannot financially support a child ……………… 23%of 6M=1,380,000 children that will not be born into and almost certainly stay in poverty

Have other people depending on me.. .…….19% of 6M=1,140,000 mothers that can continue caring for sick or elderly parents or sick children

Unstable relationship with father or other………….8% of 6M=480,000 children that won't be born into a family that is not loving, not stable and may actually be completely dysfunctional and or violent.

Not mature enough………………….………….........……..7%of 6M=420,000 children that won't be giving birth to children they can't take care of.

Job and education leave no time for a child……….4%of 6M=240,000 women that can continue with their education or job so later they can support a child in a secure and stable home.

Health of mother……………………………........…………4% of 6M=240,000 women that won't die, or have their health destroyed for an indefinite time.

Health of fetus…………………………………........………3%of6M=180,000 babies that won't be born and die shortly after birth or babies that won't have to live with with physical deformities, genetic diseases,, mental retardation for the rest of their lives.

Incest, rape, family and father want abortion……….2% of6M=120,000 women that don't have to live with the product of a rapist or of an uncle, grandfather, step father etc and a baby that isn't wanted by father or family

Other……………………………………………………6%of 6M=360,000 women that didn't want to share their reasons for getting an abortion

Not one of those 6,000,000 would have been born into homes that could give them stability, security and love. Forcing 6,000,000 children to be born into situations where they require social, medical, criminal justice or financial services is butchering children, real children, live children that suffer and are hurt by not being wanted.

 

[Lursa]

I don't value the unborn more than a woman: the unborn is indeed lesser. To me, another person's child is of less importance than my child. A random Russian woman walking around in Moscow right now is less important than my wife. However, these entities, less though they be, do not deserve death unless they challenge the life of the more important.

That's still just your opinion. That you value quantity of life over quality of life is not something you (nor the law) should be allowed to force on others.

A life is more than just breathing. I wrote a brief description of what women's obligations and responsibilities in life are, and didnt even include their right to self-determination and following their passions and goals and developing further their contributions to society.

I notice you didnt even address this, from that same post of mine that you quoted:

All women who have abortions have justification that affects their lives, sacrifices to their health, responsibilities to their families (most women who have abortions have a least 1 child, elderly, disabled dependents), commitments & obligations to their employers, community, society, even their very lives. Every single pregnancy is a risk to a woman's life...it cannot be predicted.
​

Should the ability of the woman to provide a safe home in a secure neighborhood, good food on the table, and attention to her current children or other dependents, be jeopardized by another child? Who can decide that better than the woman herself?

You are welcome to your beliefs. But the Constitution protects women, and more than just our lives. The slaves 'lived,' but not much else.

 

[weaver2]

Well, the liberal Democrats are for abortion at any state of the pregnancy. That's not a right wing anything. That's squarely on the liberal left Democrats. 60 million babies have been butchered since Roe v Wade. Sick, sick, sick...:2sick1:

Why exactly is it that you want 6,000,000 children to grow in situations where they are not wanted. After you explain that how about telling us why your decisions about sex, reproduction, birth and child care should supersede that of the women that must bear the child and then care for it for 18 years. Isn't it just a bit arrogant to assume that you get to decide for women what is best for them and their fetus? Who gave you the right to make decisions for women?

 

[Lursa]

Why exactly is it that you want 6,000,000 children to grow in situations where they are not wanted. After you explain that how about telling us why your decisions about sex, reproduction, birth and child care should supersede that of the women that must bear the child and then care for it for 18 years. Isn't it just a bit arrogant to assume that you get to decide for women what is best for them and their fetus? Who gave you the right to make decisions for women?

And the unborn is unaware and feels no pain (by law, at the point where pain 'may' be felt, anesthetic injection must be provided), so the 'when' about occurrence really makes no difference.

All abortion IMO is sad, so I dont understand really, why the 'when' makes any difference? In real life terms women dont abort healthy, viable fetuses.

But sad and necessary dont mean wrong.