GOP Lawmaker Explains Why All Abortions Should Be Illegal

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, maxwere said:

Though I disagree, I think both @Brad_ATX and @alexava have very well reasoned arguments.  Kudos.

I would challenge you guys to defend your premise that rape is evil (immoral) and the method you determine this.  (There are currently cultures that don't see certain forms of rape this way.  How can you objectively criticize those cultural practices?)  I'm particularly interested to see if you can do it without appeal to consensus, natural rights or some other kind of subjective social decency.

I don't agree with many cultural practices around the world, but for the sake of this debate I have kept it into the norms of American thought and culture which states unequivocally that rape is against the law.  For example, I don't believe in communism, but it's not my place to go to China and tell them that they are running their country the wrong way.

As for your ask about defending my premise without a subjective social decency or natural rights, I really can't.  There's nothing objective about a social construct such as rape and I think the same contention could be made for those who don't support abortion, especially for those who oppose based on religious grounds (after all, religion is a social construct as well).  I can't say "this is fact, this is fiction" which is what an objective argument would require.  In this case, one's truth could be vastly different from another.

 

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

You're making a false equivalency between someone whose body is dying and coming to the end of its ability to sustain life and one that is just beginning its life.  And even then, we are talking about the difference in allowing nature to take its course vs purposely murdering someone.  Those are not the same things.

Give me some basic criteria that will define sentience for a preborn individual.

I am not equating anything.  I am examining the issue of what constitutes human "life" which can inform us generally.

You insist human life begins with the formation of a diploid cell.  Yet, as I have tried to illustrate, human life is often taken by rationalizing a greater purpose.  So, even if fully-invested human life begins at conception, the taking of said life can and often is rationalized for pragmatic reasons.

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about life beginning at conception.  Although I think I am able to examine the issue more objectively than you are by raising questions of what really consitutes human life.  Is it the mere prescence of a full compliment of diploid DNA or is it more determined by issues of sentience (a brain)?

Regardless, even if I accept your definition of "life", I can still arbitrarily promote the life and well-being of the mother over that of the fetus.  The mother is a fully-formed human that was here first.  She is primary while the fetus is secondary. The fetus is not a fully formed human and in fact, lacks the critical characteristics associated with live babies, at least until late in pregancy.  

So, it's just bad luck for the fetus.  Just like it's bad luck for some children to have the misfortune to be under the bombs we drop.  Life is not fair.

Now, if you are unwilling to accept my perspective, so be it.  I am not trying to persuade you.  I am fine with having you believe whatever you want to believe.

The real conflict between us is what is to be done from a legal standpoint.  Presumably, you would make all abortions illegal.  I would oppose that on practical as well as constitutional grounds.  

It's the woman who has the power of decision making.  All I can do is try to ensure she retains that prerogative.  Of course, you are free to convince her of your point of view if she's receptive.  I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with are laws that would coerce her to abide standards other than her own. It's her body and her decision.  Once that autonomy is removed, she becomes nothing more than a brood cow controlled by others.

 

[homersapien 11,362]

52 minutes ago, maxwere said:

No.  If they've stayed true to Ms Sanger, just blacks, Mexicans and poor whites.

They haven't.  It's shocking you weren't aware of that.  

[TitanTiger 20,472]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not equating anything.  I am examining the issue of what constitutes human "life" which can inform us generally.

You insist human life begins with the formation of a diploid cell.  Yet, as I have tried to illustrate, human life is often taken by rationalizing a greater purpose.  So, even if fully-invested human life begins at conception, the taking of said life can and often is rationalized for pragmatic reasons.

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about life beginning at conception.  Although I think I am able to examine the issue more objectively than you are by raising questions of what really consitutes human life.  Is it the mere prescence of a full compliment of diploid DNA or is it more determined by issues of sentience (a brain)?

Regardless, even if I accept your definition of "life", I can still arbitrarily promote the life and well-being of the mother over that of the fetus.  The mother is a fully-formed human that was here first.  She is primary while the fetus is secondary. The fetus is not a fully formed human and in fact, lacks the critical characteristics associated with live babies, at least until late in pregancy.  

So, it's just bad luck for the fetus.  Just like it's bad luck for some children to have the misfortune to be under the bombs we drop.  Life is not fair.

Now, if you are unwilling to accept my perspective, so be it.  I am not trying to persuade you.  I am fine with having you believe whatever you want to believe.

The real conflict between us is what is to be done from a legal standpoint.  Presumably, you would make all abortions illegal.  I would oppose that on practical as well as constitutional grounds.  

It's the woman who has the power of decision making.  All I can do is try to ensure she retains that perrogative.  Of course, you are free to convince her of your point of view if she's receptive.  I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with are laws that would coerce her to abide standards other than her own. It's her body and her decision.  Once that autonomy is removed, she becomes nothing more than a brood cow controlled by others.

I just think "that's bad luck" is unacceptable and untenable.  You wouldn't accept such rationalizing of arbitrary killing in any other realm.  You'd rightly scream bloody murder and call for legal ramifications if a President tried to justify the killing of innocents in such a way, with no proportionate countering consideration such as saving the lives of many more people.

I think we all have the power of decision making - until our decisions adversely affect others.  My rights are not absolute.  If the mother's life is at stake, then we have an equal right on the part of the mother to, if necessary, end the pregnancy early.  But convenience, emotional distress, etc are not of equivalent importance.  They do not rise to the level that warrants killing another.  Because in the end it is her body, but it's not ONLY her body.  Her autonomy is never absolute when it affects another individual.

 

[homersapien 11,362]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I just think "that's bad luck" is unacceptable and untenable.  You wouldn't accept such rationalizing of arbitrary killing in any other realm.  You'd rightly scream bloody murder and call for legal ramifications if a President tried to justify the killing of innocents in such a way, with no proportionate countering consideration such as saving the lives of many more people.

I think we all have the power of decision making - until our decisions adversely affect others.  My rights are not absolute.  If the mother's life is at stake, then we have an equal right on the part of the mother to, if necessary, end the pregnancy early.  But convenience, emotional distress, etc are not of equivalent importance.  They do not rise to the level that warrants killing another.  Because in the end it is her body, but it's not ONLY her body.  Her autonomy is never absolute when it affects another individual.

 

Declaring bad luck as "unacceptable" or "untenable" is rather pointless.  It still exists.  s*** happens.

Like I said, we just don't agree about the sovereignty a woman has over her own body.  But you are free to tell her otherwise. The state is not. At least IMO.  

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Declaring bad luck as "unacceptable" or "untenable" is rather pointless.  It still exists.  s*** happens.

Like I said, we just don't agree about the sovereignty a woman has over her own body.  But you are free to tell her otherwise. The state is not. At least IMO.  

There's a big difference in "s*** happens" and "let's make s*** happen."

[homersapien 11,362]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

There's a big difference in "s*** happens" and "let's make s*** happen."

Yep.  But the point is, it still happens.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Yep.  But the point is, it still happens.

No, in one case it just happens.  In the other, someone is purposely inflicting harm on someone else.  They aren't the same.  That's like saying, "people die", then treating a death by heart attack and murder by gunshot to the head as the same thing.  You're being ridiculous.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

homer, you're not going to falsely accuse me of views I don't hold or go personal here.  We can have a heated debate without resorting to such tactics.

[homersapien 11,362]

44 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

homer, you're not going to falsely accuse me of views I don't hold or go personal here.  We can have a heated debate without resorting to such tactics.

 

First, if you are going to delete my post, you should respond to it with a PM.

There is an element of judgmentalism in your arguments.  Abortions don't occur for the purpose of killing a fetus.   

I have gone out of my way to respect your positions on this matter. I don't feel that's reciprocated.

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

There is an element of judgmentalism in your arguments.  Abortions don't occur for the purpose of killing a fetus.   

I didn't say that.  But it still does so intentionally.

 

Quote

I have gone out of my way to respect your positions on the matter. I don't feel that's reciprocated.

For the most part I agree - you have, as has almost everyone on this thread.  And I have reciprocated that.  Don't mistake pushback and critique as not respecting it.  But your comment was over the line and I have not deliberately mischaracterized your motives.

[maxwere 82]

56 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not equating anything.  I am examining the issue of what constitutes human "life" which can inform us generally.

You insist human life begins with the formation of a diploid cell.  Yet, as I have tried to illustrate, human life is often taken by rationalizing a greater purpose.  So, even if fully-invested human life begins at conception, the taking of said life can and often is rationalized for pragmatic reasons.

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about life beginning at conception.  Although I think I am able to examine the issue more objectively than you are by raising questions of what really consitutes human life.  Is it the mere prescence of a full compliment of diploid DNA or is it more determined by issues of sentience (a brain)?

Regardless, even if I accept your definition of "life", I can still arbitrarily promote the life and well-being of the mother over that of the fetus.  The mother is a fully-formed human that was here first.  She is primary while the fetus is secondary. The fetus is not a fully formed human and in fact, lacks the critical characteristics associated with live babies, at least until late in pregancy.  

So, it's just bad luck for the fetus.  Just like it's bad luck for some children to have the misfortune to be under the bombs we drop.  Life is not fair.

Now, if you are unwilling to accept my perspective, so be it.  I am not trying to persuade you.  I am fine with having you believe whatever you want to believe.

The real conflict between us is what is to be done from a legal standpoint.  Presumably, you would make all abortions illegal.  I would oppose that on practical as well as constitutional grounds.  

It's the woman who has the power of decision making.  All I can do is try to ensure she retains that perrogative.  Of course, you are free to convince her of your point of view if she's receptive.  I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with are laws that would coerce her to abide standards other than her own. It's her body and her decision.  Once that autonomy is removed, she becomes nothing more than a brood cow controlled by others.

 

Really good argument.  Sounds libertarian (gasp).  My ontological view of "life" takes me to a different conclusion.  But, it not for that I'd agree with you.

To be clear on my position, I believe a just magistrate protecting a just society puts rapists and murders to death.  In particular, women who murder their kids.  Lex talionis.  That's the law I would prefer locally.  It's not a crime against the feds or states, its a crime against a local victim.  Retribution is taken to restore that victim, especially in case of unwanted pregnancy.  However, like you, I don't want abortions or women's health to be legislated.  I want murders & rapists to be tried and sentenced.  A crime must be committed to involve action.  (realizing of course, there are lesser crimes of the same sort, extenuating circumstances that absolve would be defendant etc)

[homersapien 11,362]

8 minutes ago, maxwere said:

Really good argument.  Sounds libertarian (gasp).  My ontological view of "life" takes me to a different conclusion.  But, it not for that I'd agree with you.

To be clear on my position, I believe a just magistrate protecting a just society puts rapists and murders to death.  In particular, women who murder their kids.  Lex talionis.  That's the law I would prefer locally.  It's not a crime against the feds or states, its a crime against a local victim.  Retribution is taken to restore that victim, especially in case of unwanted pregnancy.  However, like you, I don't want abortions or women's health to be legislated.  I want murders & rapists to be tried and sentenced.  A crime must be committed to involve action.  (realizing of course, there are lesser crimes of the same sort, extenuating circumstances that absolve would be defendant etc)

Why the "gasp"?   Libertarianism has some very compelling aspects.

[1913-14 263]

22 hours ago, bigbird said:

The characteristics of life

Cellular organization

Reproduction

Metabolism

Homeostasis

Heredity

Response to stimuli

Growth and development

Adaptation through evolution

 

One of my degrees is in molecular biology. Through my embryology classes I can tell you that as soon as the egg is fertilized that cell begins to show each of those characteristics.

BINGO...

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

On 4/19/2017 at 11:23 AM, TitanTiger said:

I've yet to, in all my years of living and moving amongst conservative, pro-life evangelicals, met someone who believed that an abortion (or at least a too early delivery attempt) wasn't warranted in cases where the woman's life was in danger from carrying to term.  I know they exist, but they're like unicorns.  I've met women who say they would not abort even if their life was in danger, but they wouldn't go so far as to say that they'd make that the law.  Even the Catholic church teaches that you do what is medically necessary to save the mother's life but you do not do so in a way that your only intent is to kill the child.  In other words, you attempt to save both, but if the child dies in the course of that attempt, it is not considered an abortion.  That is a fundamentally different thing than purposely choosing to inject saline into the amniotic sac and chemically burn the fetus, crush it with various instruments, then rip it apart with powerful suction.

You are quite right about the Catholic Church there have been instances where a pregnant woman had cancer and had the option of  Chemo and or Radiation therapy to save the woman's life or waiting till term as having Chemo or Radiation or both would probably kill the Fetus. The Catholic Church's teaching in this situation is that it is the mothers decision.

Some mothers choose to wait so that the child can be born and in most cases die because of this a few have done this and lived.  Other mothers have chosen the treatment in most cases the fetus dies but in a few cases the fetus survives. When it is really a choice between the mothers life and the child's life the mother has the choice and either choice is correct.  

[shabby 1,956]

On ‎4‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 2:08 PM, AuburnNTexas said:

There are waiting lists for people trying to adopt often 2 or more years.So there is already an oversupply of people waiting to adopt .

This is very misleading. Yes there is a waiting list for new borns. In part due to a shortage but also in part to ensure prospective parents are sure about the process and the decision as well as to ensure the fitness of the parent. What you don't mention is the enormous number of children in forster care in need of adoption:  "About 104,000 children in the foster care system were waiting to be adopted as of July 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

[alexava 6,973]

2 hours ago, shabby said:

This is very misleading. Yes there is a waiting list for new borns. In part due to a shortage but also in part to ensure prospective parents are sure about the process and the decision as well as to ensure the fitness of the parent. What you don't mention is the enormous number of children in forster care in need of adoption:  "About 104,000 children in the foster care system were waiting to be adopted as of July 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

Exactly. I have been aware of a couple situations locally, this was an issue. That is why I say pro- birth instead of pro- life. I also understand the waiting period. You gotta check people out. But newborns go easily, even with disabilities. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

And yet, surveys show that Christians (who are most often pro-life) not only have higher adoption rates than the rest of the population, but also become foster parents more often.   Five percent of practicing U.S. Christians – compared to 2 percent of all U.S. adults – have adopted children.  When asked if they had seriously considered adopting, 38 percent of practicing Christians and 26 percent of all adults responded affirmatively.

Three percent of practicing U.S. Christians are foster parents and 31 percent have seriously considered fostering a child.  By comparison, 2 percent of all U.S. adults are foster parents while 11 percent seriously considered fostering a child (and that "all adults" includes the Christians.  The disparity would be greater if you extracted them from the latter group).

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/christians-more-than-twice-as-likely-to-adopt-a-child-cms-21267

Could those number be higher?  Sure.  But Christians do a lot to not only help with adoption and fostering and such, but they also fund many charitable efforts that not only help women during pregnancy, but also afterwards even if they keep the child.  The number of crisis pregnancy centers dwarfs the number of abortion clinics nationwide, funded with donations from pro-life people and usually staffed by unpaid volunteers.  They are putting their time and money where their mouth is already.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

3 hours ago, shabby said:

This is very misleading. Yes there is a waiting list for new borns. In part due to a shortage but also in part to ensure prospective parents are sure about the process and the decision as well as to ensure the fitness of the parent. What you don't mention is the enormous number of children in forster care in need of adoption:  "About 104,000 children in the foster care system were waiting to be adopted as of July 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

It is not misleading. We are talking about not having an abortion and then keeping the child or having the new born adopted. My point is there is no shortage of parents able and willing to take a new born. If somebody wants an abortion because they don't want a child at that time it seems illogical that they wouldn't  put the child up for abortion.  It does take time to approve a family for adoption but that can be arranged before the baby is born.

There definitely is an issue with adoptions of older children but that is unrelated to having a new born adopted. I am open to a new topic on the issues with getting older children adopted. I believe you will find people on both sides of the abortion issues will have similar views on this issue. I think we spend to much time discussing abortion and not trying to solve this issue. This issue is very complicated in its own right.