"pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

[Taste of Death]

Snopes coverage bears out what I was telling you, this was a forensic debate to advance the discussion, not an attempt to execute anybody. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/death ... ion-texas/

While considering recategorizing pregnancies as people, it was discussed that this would, of logical necessity, make abortion chargeable to all involved (who survive). Rather like this: If you hire someone to kill your wife, you did not kill her, but you are still on the hook for Murder One. Likewise your baby.

That was sound legal reasoning, but it had an awkward outcome, and the Texas legislature shied away from further consideration on that line of reasoning.

The thing that seems to have progressive media so agitated is that people must not be allowed to think or say such things. They must be punished with public scorn even for talking about it. But a logical question was raised in Texas.

Note that Snopes has moved the story to its "Outdated" bin. Old news and not worth pursuing, and in this case, it was never a story, really. It was free speech doing what it does.

My own view is, if you do not believe it is a real baby in there, just wait a while and you will find out.

How do people square being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty? When someone's loved one is murdered, at the killer's sentencing, they stare him down and say they wish he had never been born. After witnessing his execution they go out the next day and attend a Right to Life march. I prefer the Catholic nuns. They're anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.

I'm with the nuns. But I have a little bit of a question there. Some people have shown by their actions that they never can be allowed back into normal society. What do you do with them?

An answer from the other side of the question is that the baby has not done anything yet, hasn't murdered anybody, so the cases are not the same.

People who are anti-abortion claim to be pro-life. And like to say things such as, "We are all God's children."

Life sentence with no possiblity of parole prevents them returning to society. The death penalty is about revenge.

[Steve James]

Yes, I understood that the thread title probably exaggerated the issue, as much as the implication that the NYS law promoted abortions even at 40 weeks. I believe that both cases are examples of undesirable extremes. What interested me was the way "abortion" was being argued as if all cases were the same, as if there were some absolute right or wrong that could be determined in advance -on whatever moral, scientific, or religious basis --and who could be allowed to make that determination. S, Mike says,

I've asked you fellas three times to reveal the principle of why only women should legislate abortion and you both give me this horseshit.

My principle is that it is the woman's specific situation, not that "only women should legislate." Legislation to permit abortions has been enacted when there were few female legislators. You'd be talking about new legislation, if you were talking about legislation. Really, you're advocating for men, who imho are not in a similar position to a pregnant woman. But, again, it comes down to specifics.

For ex., if it is found that giving birth (at any point in the process you like) will kill the mother, who should make the decision? Granted, some would argue that whatever happens is "God's will." I won't disagree with them, but I don't think I have the right to make that religious decision for someone else. I will also grant that a Catholic hospital should not be forced to perform an abortion that goes contrary to their beliefs.

There might also be those who'd say that "there's a heartbeat," so, scientifically, there's a baby. I simply disagree. It's arbitrary. Humans give birth to humans. One might as well argue that there's a baby from the moment of conception. Again, that's what some say. I totally disagree, but I don't think I would or could do it. However, if it were a choice between my wife and our unborn child, I'd choose my wife. Though, I'm sure that my wife would never permit it.

That's my rationale. What is your rationale for not allowing a woman to make the decision to abort "the day after," for ex? Does the male have the right to force a woman to hold sperm in her vajayjay until sperm punctures egg? After all, we know that a human being will be the inevitable result? Sound extreme? But, some groups have protested the "day after" pill for those reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone
Ok, it can be effective up to 49 days after fertilization. No, not 40 weeks.

[edededed]

The "arbitrary" part is human perception/culture (e.g. "birthday" starting from exiting the womb) - science tries to objectively find when "humanness" begins. Whether that is determined by heartbeat or consciousness or some other factor may still be debatable, but culture should not be used as the defining factor for when "baby" begins. (I personally believe that it begins at conception.)

Eggs and sperm have the potential to be independent life, but not by themselves. In isolation they can be treated like our other cells (skin cells, etc.). It would be ridiculous to want to turn every single sperm and egg into a complete human. (Women have 2 million eggs, men continually produce sperm in the 100s of millions.)

[Steve James]

Só, iyo, a woman taking a morning after pill after she's been raped should be prosecuted or punished?
And what about the argument against birth control.

[edededed]

Pregnancy from rape is a complex issue for sure. Very early on (zygote, etc.), I think that most people would not prosecute the woman in your example.

Birth control is simpler - it is a good way to control sex (enjoy it without creating babies). But as birth control does not work 100% of the time, people should still be ready to take responsibility if a baby is the result. (One should not try to "undo" it via abortion.)

But some contraception methods work by removing fertilized zygotes - condoms, etc. are better in that they prevent fertilization, not attempt to "undo" it afterwards (i.e. very early-stage abortion).

[Michael]

That's my rationale. What is your rationale for not allowing a woman to make the decision to abort "the day after," for ex?

The baby is a new, unique person at conception. For example, it has a unique genetic code. Its physical survival requires the care and nurturing of its mother and father from conception until it's several years old.

My principle is that it is the woman's specific situation,

Men are involved in making the baby, so not all of it is specific to women alone. I think the argument that women can not be told by men what to do with their bodies is facile. It has no basis in law, morality, or philosophy. I haven't seen any argument for it whatsoever, only assertion.

[Steve James]

So, both of you suggest that a raped woman cannot use a pill to abort the "baby."
What do you think the punishment should be.

I think the argument that women can not be told by men what to do with their bodies is facile.

Um, I don't think you realize what facile means. However, there is no basis for the argument that "men can tell women what to do with their bodies."

For one thing, the issue is not what "men can tell women." You do not listen. My point was that "A" woman has the right to decide what to do with "HER" body. MEN have no right to tell HER what to do with HER body. Do you think that WOMEN have a right to tell YOU what to do with YOUR body when YOUR life at risk?

If your argument is that as soon as I come in a woman that I have some right to determine what she does next, I think you're idealistic, at best. Note that we're all males engaging in this debate. In point of fact, women don't give a fuck what we think? Some might agree; some might not. They'll end up making the decision. We can only react. Back to the argument.

My main point has always been that every abortion is unique because every pregnancy is unique. "I" don't have a moral right to decide for ANY other person to decide what to do with their body. Sure, I can be given that right or even the right to own slaves and have absolute control over their bodies. That is, a person who does not have the right to do what they want with their own body is not free. Now, with freedom should come responsibility; and therein lies the question of punishment. It's easy (can be done with facility) to say that abortion is bad until we talk about specific cases.

Afa the baby being fully human at conception. Well, if the fertilized egg is removed at that point and brought to term outside the woman's body, and without her sustenance, then do that. Forcing the woman (by the threat of punishment) to carry the woman is coercion and deprives that pregnant woman (NOT WOMEN) of her rights.

It's not necessary to argue with me about when a baby is created. The important thing is that I'm not a woman. I am a parent who's watched childbirth. I have never and would never tell/suggest that a woman get an abortion. However, I can't speak for the raped woman; nor do I care for the feelings of her male rapist. I don't pretend to know the right thing to do is, or that my opinion is more important than that of the WOMAN who is pregnant.

[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. Of course, the Church has a good reason to proscribe birth control and abortion among its followers and this reason has nothing to do with morals or ethics. If it were a moral issue, they would surely support contraception in order to save "lives." But, they just want more followers which means more money. All their justifications are just reverse engineered apologetics and unconvincing.

I do agree with Micheal (gasp!) that laws in a democracy should obviously be voted on and men should vote on laws as should women. But, it is my sincere hope that as time goes on and people learn to think with reason rather than dogma, we find better solutions. I don't think anyone wants to have an abortion, but I also think that rather than focusing on vilifying women or murdering them, we should work to make abortions rarer through education and widely available contraception. Look at the countries with low abortion rates. What sorts of policies do they have?

Also, I wonder how staunchly anti-abortion men would feel if they had to start paying child support as soon as they had sex with a woman. And maybe they should also insure the woman and embryo.

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.

As for pro-life people threatening to kill women for having an abortion: speak for itself.

Contraception and abortion are perhaps the greatest technological development (or factor of any kind) aiding women in achieving an equal place in society. This is obvious and clearly a threat to many conservative men, who by definition don't want to see women in positions of power and equality.

[Steve James]

I do agree with Micheal (gasp!) that laws in a democracy should obviously be voted on and men should vote on laws as should women.

It isn't a question of who should vote on the laws. After all, abortion laws were created when women were not allowed to vote. Moreover, women and men already voted on this issue, and at no time have only women created the law. What's been happening have been challenges to existing laws that both men and women voted on. Heartbeats were noticeable before I was born, and the philosophical questions existed.

My point is and has always been that the decision to abort should be the woman's. I don't believe that the father should have the right to order the woman to abort, or the right to order her to give birth. Society can vote whichever way it chooses. The right to self-determination exists. The only question is what society does to the individual's involved.

When women have the right to demand men to have vasectomies or to make babies --by making it illegal if they don't-- then I think we'd have a comparable situation. I don't see abortion as taking away men's rights. If they don't want abortions, don't have sex. Keep your sperm to yourself until you find a woman who wants sum. And, if none of them do, then stay out of their way.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Hi Steve,

I don't think I disagree with much or any of what you wrote. But, legality cannot be ignored as a matter of practicality. The laws matter, for many reasons. In fact, this thread is about a potential law. You don't have to contend with that facet if you don't want, but I personally think that politics and legislation are an important part of the complex issue. I think better policy will lead to fewer abortions, which I think is an ideal outcome.

[Steve James]

The laws matter, for many reasons. In fact, this thread is about a potential law. You don't have to contend with that facet if you don't want, but I personally think that politics and legislation are an important part of the complex issue.

There was a law that permitted abortion (under specific circumstances). However, I can't argue that all laws are just, and I'm not sure you would either. The new law proposes a penalty. I disagree with the penalty. I.e., how the formerly pregnant woman should be punished for having an abortion.

I also disagree with the premise that it doesn't matter who votes on a law. For example, suppose there was a proposal for a law that decreed that people with stage four cancer should not receive more care. Should they be allowed to vote? Of course, but suppose the vote passes? Is the law therefore more just because everyone voted on it?

Anyway, there are laws in some states that give a rapist the right to partial custody, even if incarcerated. I don't think women who were raped would have voted for it, or thought it was a good thing. They, however, don't make those decisions. I tend to put myself in the position of one of the women in such a tragic circumstance, and I feel that I wouldn't want anyone (male or female or XYZ) to make the decision for me.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

There was a law that permitted abortion (under specific circumstances). However, I can't argue that all laws are just, and I'm not sure you would either. The new law proposes a penalty. I disagree with the penalty. I.e., how the formerly pregnant woman should be punished for having an abortion.

I also disagree with the premise that it doesn't matter who votes on a law. For example, suppose there was a proposal for a law that decreed that people with stage four cancer should not receive more care. Should they be allowed to vote? Of course, but suppose the vote passes? Is the law therefore more just because everyone voted on it?

Anyway, there are laws in some states that give a rapist the right to partial custody, even if incarcerated. I don't think women who were raped would have voted for it, or thought it was a good thing. They, however, don't make those decisions. I tend to put myself in the position of one of the women in such a tragic circumstance, and I feel that I wouldn't want anyone (male or female or XYZ) to make the decision for me.

I'm simply saying that when debating abortion it's a bit naive or disingenuous to ignore the lived realities of women. In many places, abortion is either illegal or made unavailable due to...laws. There are no laws I know of where men are excluded from the vote, and I don't think they should be. Now, you bring up an example of when that might not be a great idea. That's why we have things like the Bill of Rights. The Constitution can and should protect minorities in a democracy (I know, I know, but I'm saying that's how it should work and it seems to be going that way over the longue duree).

Recognizing the above, it becomes more important than ever to pursue policies such as the ones I mentioned before, which one would think would make all happy. Of course, it doesn't and won't. Conservatives will fight against sex ed and birth control as they always do and despite the evidence, further illustrating that it's really probably all just about controlling women.

[Michael]

Um, I don't think you realize what facile means.

On that note, let me recommend a movie I think is a really good drama you might enjoy. Not sure if it's even had a proper theatrical release yet, but "The Professor and the Madman" starring Mel Gibson and Sean Penn is about the creation of the Oxford English Dictionary and I think it's right up your alley as a movie watcher and english teacher. I love both those actors and enjoyed the movie quite a bit.

[Finny]

Ian, Finny, Taste of Larp, none of you have contributed anything to this topic. Your passive-aggressive comments are boring, witless, and humorless. You're incapable of making arguments. What losers you all make of yourselves here. Even your insults are lame.

Cheers mate. Good talk.

For what it's worth, I didn't offer any insults. And I'm not sure why you seem to be so upset to be honest.

My apologies for not replying to your question Michael - I didn't articulate the arguments I referred to as I figured it would be redundant. As I said, they are obvious, and logical. If you are capable of rational thought (or even basic reading comprehension) you would have encountered and understood them, and this discussion wouldn't be necessary.

[edededed]

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.