How To Finally Resolve the Abortion Debate

Where do you draw the line?

There are already multiple cases of women who have had foetal deaths and miscarriages charged with murder

 

As in the woman was charged with murder? What cases were these?

 

To believe that it is homicide is simply to believe that the fetus is a human!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/miscarriage-murder-roevwade-personhood

 

Democrats argued state's rights to have slavery. Now democrats argue women's rights to justify killing babies. Why do you need to hide behind such arguments to justify such atrocities?

 

The line for what?

 

I think she's referring to gestation and level of evidence.

 

If society thinks something, why do they need courts to overrule the law?

 

I don't know what I'm gonna hear next! I've always said that in America, ANYTHING can happen!

 

Yeah but it is a beautiful homicide

 

I doubt there is anyone who claims a human fetus isn't human, I haven't heard anyone say that.

However, it is not A human being as in "legal person"...it has to be born to be a legal person.

And no matter what anyone calls it or it's death, it is still not a legal person with rights.

 

Funny how the OP thought this thread would resolve the abortion debate ….

 

Should she be able to have an abortion? Yes.
Should she pay for it herself? Yes.

Irresponsible behaviour should have proper consequences. That includes doing the deed where you a) don't want a kid and b) don't use protection/prevention.

 

So if you drive irresponsibly and have an accident and get hurt NO one should give you medical care ?...you should be left on the side of the road for the trash haulers to pick up??

You act irresponsibly and lose all your money and you should be left to starve in the streets with your children?


You eat fast food and have a heart attack and you have no right to medical attention Really?

Thank goodness there are women responsible enough to have an abortion rather than bring a kid into the world they either don't want or can't afford!!

That is SO MUCH more responsible than bringing kids into the world you can't afford...

 

This is about abortion. How about you stay on topic?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
So if you drive irresponsibly and have an accident and get hurt NO one should give you medical care ?...you should be left on the side of the road for the trash haulers to pick up??

You act irresponsibly and lose all your money and you should be left to starve in the streets with your children?


You eat fast food and have a heart attack and you have no right to medical attention Really?

Thank goodness there are women responsible enough to have an abortion rather than bring a kid into the world they either don't want or can't afford!!

That is SO MUCH more responsible than bringing kids into the world you can't afford...

How about you answer those " inconvenient" questions?

Do you think only women have to conform to your idea of "responsibility" ?

Why do you think women should be denied health insurance for a legal medical procedure?

 

This is about about abortion. Again, stay on topic. If you want to talk about the other topics feel free to make different threads for them and I will happily engage with you.

Back on-topic:
If you don't want a kid but you enjoy doing it, you will have to get prevention and/or protection to reduce the chances of having a kid. If you do end up unfortunate enough to get pregnant, she should have the option of abortion available if her/their situation doesn't allow to have a kid in their life, be it socially, economically, due to disability, +++.

It's irresponsible to put a kid into the world you can't afford to foster properly, especially if you have problems taking care of yourself in possibly various different ways. It's irresponsible to put a child through such struggles. It's a burden not only on the child but on his/her parents too.

 

There is no obligation to use birth control...it's a choice, we have choices in the US...

Well, you sound like you are firmly in the Pro-CHOICE camp! Good!

 

Indeed. There are no obligations to use the pill, the same way there isn't an obligation not to use it. You take on the consequences of your actions.

I'm a slightly Right-wing Libertarian, so yes, I am mainly pro-choice on a lot of issues. Abortion being one of them. The freer the people the happier they are.

 

While " a lot of issues" is off topic , I agree that the right to one's own body covers other issues.

And the right to one's own body is the main issue in abortion.

That's true.

 

That is a different argument. Your first mistake is your wording. "whether or not to have the baby" assumes a baby exists.

Proper wording is "whether or not to have a baby" or better yet "whether or not to create a baby".

Let us assume- for arguments sake - that we are talking about the later stage of pregnancy - a time where good arguments can be made that a baby (a living human ) actually exists - as opposed to the early stages where there are not good arguments.

In this case- from a legal perspective - you have a case of competing interests. Fox will argue that the rights of the woman outweigh the inferred rights of the fetus. It is also the job of the court to weigh these competing interests.

There are complicated arguments involved such as whether or not the fetus has the right to occupancy in the womb. Then there is the self defense argument - that the fetus is a threat to the life of the mother (regardless of how significant - it is a fact that childbirth carries a risk of harm to the woman).

There is also the Constitutional argument that a person not born does not have rights under the constitution.

My take on the issue of late term abortion is that 1) I have moral issues with late term abortion. There is no doubt that there are good arguments for personhood in the latter stages.

2) Me having a moral issue does not help much with the legal question. I have a problem with a woman waiting so long.

For example - The owner can not just kick a renter out - say in the case where it is -30 outside and kicking this person out into the cold would subject them to life threatening harm. There is some measure of consent that exists - consent to occupancy - which gives the renter some rights.

A similar argument can be used in the case of a woman who has consented to allowing the Fetus to mature in her womb - to the point where a living human has been created.

While I think this is useful against the "right to occupancy" argument - it does not help as much with the self defense argument where the actual act of childbirth can be said to constitute a risk of harm.

It does help a little however as if the woman was unwilling to accept the risk of harm from childbirth - she should have had the abortion sooner.

The legal problem however is one of punishing someone for stupidity. It gets very grey - so much so that I have trouble with a ban on philosophical basis alone.

On the other hand - if an "overwhelming majority" would agree that late term should be banned - such law would be legitimate.

 

I do not think you understood the conversation - and can not make sense out of your post in relation to the conversation.

If "Society" thinks something - as in "overwheming majority" at least 2/3rds majority - say that some law is bad, then that law is illegitimate under the principles of which law and the constitution are supposed to be interpreted.

 

Very well stated

 

There are laws protecting fetuses from late term elective abortions.

And mentally stable women do not wait 8-9 months "enjoying " pregnancy to just, on a whim, have the "fun" of an abortion ( so laws protecting fetuses after 23 weeks are unnecessary).

Women who want late term elective abortions are not necessarily stupid...they may have mental problems but to call them stupid is wrong.

 

I agree that perhaps my wording may have not the best. What word I do choose is not going to be flattering. At the end of the day I agree that mentally stable women do not wait 8-9 months - which is why this is exceedingly rare. So either mentally unstable or (just plain - you choose the word)

Regardless - the question is what are the arguments at this point ...