"pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

[Michael]

Finny, sorry. I grouped you in. No, you didn't insult me, but if you want a good talk, then say something of substance. Your truths are not self-evident and I don't know why you have for the third time said there is an obvious, logical, and rational argument that only women can legislate abortion (reality check: do we agree that is the point of argumentation?) that you can not make any mention of or reference to. The rational and obvious conclusion is that you're incorrect, there is no such rationale, but you are compelled to pretend otherwise.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

The opinion that a human is formed upon conception is very contentious and I have yet to see any evidence that this line of thinking stems from any other source than Church dogma. ... At any rate, the idea that conception=human is not even facile. There isn't even a seemingly good argument hiding the truth of it. Two-thirds of fertilized embryos aren't even viable. Certainly one could say that a couple of cells has the potential to become a human, but that's about it.

I did not know that "human from conception" was contentious at all. Biology, medicine, etc. seem to agree with this concept (e.g. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html). I don't think it has to do with religion at all (at least for me it never did).

Certainly many embryos do not survive, resulting in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). They were humans that unfortunately died very early on, before leaving the placenta, and hopefully before consciousness and the ability to feel pain. On the other hand, even infants are said to have no self-awareness.

Ed, I'm sorry. I meant to say person, not human. I agree that there is not really any argument that the beginning of human life would have to be at conception. But, doctors, religious leaders, voters, and even scientists often draw a distinction between person and human, humanity, and species. This is where the contention I mentioned comes in.

As for this distinction, I can't imagine that social conditioning of many sorts can be avoided when formulating an opinion either way.

[Steve James]

that only women can legislate abortion (reality check: do we agree that is the point of argumentation?)

Actually, that's your straw man. No one has suggested that on this thread.

However, there is no consensus that a law demanding that a woman who has an abortion should be imprisoned or even executed. If life begins at conception, then any deliberate act to prevent the birth would be considered a crime. If even fetuses deemed non-viable survive, then any abortion would be considered the same as killing a baby at birth. There is no leeway in the argument if it's based on "law."

As I've said from the first, each situation has to be judged on its own. Ultimately, I don't believe that I (or you --all, specifically) have the right to make that decision for any woman --even one you've impregnated. That doesn't change because people vote to give you that right. My argument has nothing to do with men being prohibited from VOTING..

[edededed]

Ed, I'm sorry. I meant to say person, not human. I agree that there is not really any argument that the beginning of human life would have to be at conception. But, doctors, religious leaders, voters, and even scientists often draw a distinction between person and human, humanity, and species. This is where the contention I mentioned comes in.

As for this distinction, I can't imagine that social conditioning of many sorts can be avoided when formulating an opinion either way.

Ah - thanks for the clarification. I agree that social conditioning (social bias) will be have a strong influence on one's opinion of course.

My fear is that people try to argue about the beginning of "person" for convenience's sake. Is person defined by consciousness, or the ability to feel fear/pain, or the ability to move, or....? What if an adult human being is unconscious, unable to feel pain, and unable to move? (That sounds a bit like sleep, and actually, apparently embryos/fetuses are in a similar state, sedated by the placenta, environment, etc.)

[Michael]

that only women can legislate abortion (reality check: do we agree that is the point of argumentation?)

Actually, that's your straw man. No one has suggested that on this thread.

Don't you think congratulations are in order? I mean, for a guy who doesn't know the meaning of facile, I think it's quite an accomplishment for me to have constructed such a magnificent strawman that it wasn't even noticed for 3 pages.

[Steve James]

Yep, it's me. I say the same thing over and over, and even use all caps for emphasis, and it still doesn't get through.

Then again, if it were so obvious, I guess you wouldn't have asked the question.

[Michael]

I was confirming with Finny. I already knew you were onto a different perspective.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Ed, I'm sorry. I meant to say person, not human. I agree that there is not really any argument that the beginning of human life would have to be at conception. But, doctors, religious leaders, voters, and even scientists often draw a distinction between person and human, humanity, and species. This is where the contention I mentioned comes in.

As for this distinction, I can't imagine that social conditioning of many sorts can be avoided when formulating an opinion either way.

Ah - thanks for the clarification. I agree that social conditioning (social bias) will be have a strong influence on one's opinion of course.

My fear is that people try to argue about the beginning of "person" for convenience's sake. Is person defined by consciousness, or the ability to feel fear/pain, or the ability to move, or....? What if an adult human being is unconscious, unable to feel pain, and unable to move? (That sounds a bit like sleep, and actually, apparently embryos/fetuses are in a similar state, sedated by the placenta, environment, etc.)

I think these are important and challenging questions. I haven't come to a conclusion on them as of yet. I'm reading lots of philosophy these days, but I am not sure if it helps me to come to conclusions about deep questions or to just spend more time pondering them.

As for the state of embryos: I really doubt that there is much similarity to sleep in the early stages especially when one reads about sleep and some of the potential reasons we partake in the activity. I think it has a lot to do with sorting information, forming memory, etc...Not things a few hundred cells would do. As for convenience, I think I understand what you are getting at, but I would again posit that I don't think anyone plans or wants to get an abortion (okay, there are always some strange people out there, but in general). And, I don't think it is always a matter of personal convenience, either. In some extreme examples, it could have to do with personal safety (not even talking about medical issues). There are some messed up laws in some states and the rapist can claim parental rights and be a constant presence in their victim's lives. To be sure, it's a complex issue.

As I have stated, why doesn't everyone work to make them less common? Why are conservatives the biggest hurdle here? I think it's because they are not being honest about why they have a problem with it.

[Finny]

I was confirming with Finny. I already knew you were onto a different perspective.

I would agree with the others - I didn't understand the argument to be that only women could legislate on abortion. I thought the contention was that as women are the ones subject to the procedure and the consequences of any regulation/legislation, their interests should be prioritised.

[edededed]

I think these are important and challenging questions. I haven't come to a conclusion on them as of yet. I'm reading lots of philosophy these days, but I am not sure if it helps me to come to conclusions about deep questions or to just spend more time pondering them.

As for the state of embryos: I really doubt that there is much similarity to sleep in the early stages especially when one reads about sleep and some of the potential reasons we partake in the activity. I think it has a lot to do with sorting information, forming memory, etc...Not things a few hundred cells would do. As for convenience, I think I understand what you are getting at, but I would again posit that I don't think anyone plans or wants to get an abortion (okay, there are always some strange people out there, but in general). And, I don't think it is always a matter of personal convenience, either. In some extreme examples, it could have to do with personal safety (not even talking about medical issues). There are some messed up laws in some states and the rapist can claim parental rights and be a constant presence in their victim's lives. To be sure, it's a complex issue.

As I have stated, why doesn't everyone work to make them less common? Why are conservatives the biggest hurdle here? I think it's because they are not being honest about why they have a problem with it.

Yeah, these are not easy questions for sure.

Embryos - sorry if I was unclear, but I meant embryos in later stages (certainly a brain is required, I think). But as you say, sleep has a primary role in learning (and unlearning) and seems to be a key mode of our brain, so I wonder what this means for us when we are embryos/fetuses and under development.

As for convenience - although in debates, people often bring up rape or mother's danger, I think that the majority of abortions are carried out for reasons like economics (perceived lack of money to raise another child), personal reasons (child was conceived in good times, but now divorce is pending, so no longer want the child), and irresponsibility (enjoyed free sex, child was conceived, so want to "undo" it).

I agree that conservatives could frame the issue differently to actually go towards making positive changes.

[Dmitri]

The problem is with the inherent human need to categorize and put things on shelves. Just like with death, where there may simply not be a single point in time where someone is "alive", and the next second they're not (think "brain death" condition, for example), there is no single point in time when a human, or a person for that matter, "becomes alive" (or just "becomes").

Ideally, from a legal standpoint any situation should be treated as a completely separate one, without lumping everything into the same legislative bucket. If a healthy woman decides to have an abortion at 7 months in because she just doesn't feel like having the baby anymore, maybe that should be treated completely differently from a rape victim who finds out she is pregnant at 2 months in.

They can even figure out if a virus is a life form, let alone something as complex as human. When does a bud become a leaf? When does a leaf "die"?
Wish people would stop wasting away at these unsolvable arguments about "when life begins" -- it doesn't begin or end; things just change.

[Steve James]

Ok, how about this. Suppose "you" are a pregnant woman and any point in "your" pregnancy. Let's assume that "you" are a rational person and that there are no problems with the pregnancy. Now, assume that a law is passed declaring that any fetus with a defect MUST be aborted. Would "you" personally want to be able to make the final decision on your own? Would you feel that your rights were being violated at all? I think that any rational person would want the right to choose, and that no rational person would agree to give up that right. It's not a matter of what the final decision is. Thoughts.

Of course, the Spartans simply exposed newborns they considered weak or defective to the wilderness, but infanticide is not the point here.

[origami_itto]

I'll just say that unequivocally it is a decision to be made by the woman herself and that abortion needs to remain a safe and accessible option for any woman that feels it is the right decision for her at that time. Why it's even still a subject for debate astounds me.

[Michael]

I'll just say that unequivocally it is a decision to be made by the woman herself and that abortion needs to remain a safe and accessible option for any woman that feels it is the right decision for her at that time. Why it's even still a subject for debate astounds me.

Is everyone not equal under the law? Is everyone not protected by the law? Is everyone not punishable by law? That is why there can be laws about abortion that limit women's choices, just as there are laws about everything that restrict and limit people's choices, as well as protecting their freedoms.

Why you guys keep going in circles to avoid the basic premise of society astounds me. If you can't admit the reality of the situation, and I know exactly why you can not, then trying to discuss examples of abortion law, such as the details of the NY state law that removes restrictions, or other states' introduction of heartbeat bills to increase restrictions, is going to continue in misunderstanding the way we have been for five pages.

Let me know when you're ready to get real.

[Michael]

In the mean time...

I"m Pro-Life. Chang My Mind



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nhXQS5UUGQ&t=2217s