How To Finally Resolve the Abortion Debate

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Meta777, Aug 4, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Yup, as I said the abortion "debate" has been settled....

    ...most women abort between 12 and 18 weeks and mentally stable women don't abort after 23-24 weeks except in the case of their health/life being in jeopardy....or the life/health of the fetus being in jeopardy.


    And the fetus never attains personhood until it's born....which is practical and reasonable.
     
  2. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why 12 weeks?

    -Meta
     
  3. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Guys... it is impossible to perform an abortion (early termination of pregnancy by removal of fetus from the womb) after a person has already been born (i.e. exited the womb). In order to do it, you'd have the first shove that person back into a womb somehow. At 18-22 years old, most people have simply grown far too big for such a feat to be physically feasible. Lol. Though maybe if you found a particularly large womb or something,... but probably not the same one that they originally came out of. Haha, this reminds me of a Family Guy joke.

    -Meta
     
  4. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When a zygote becomes a child depends entirely upon what criteria one uses to define what a child is.
    And its not that no one knows the answer, its simply that many of us have different definitions.

    My view though is that the definition of what constitutes a child doesn't matter,
    because in the end it is an arbitrary classification without much real meaning.
    Much more prudent imo to go with something like mental life or pain perception ability as the criteria.

    -Meta
     
  5. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How close are we to finally resolving the debate?
     
  6. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was basing it on the ability to live on their own, a postpartum abortion, or self immolation.
    But then, should there be any age limit once one is capable of thinking own their own to decide to end their own life?
     
  7. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well I have a Ranked vote scheduled to start this Friday.
    I guess we'll find out then.

    -Meta
     
  8. Capt Nice

    Capt Nice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,998
    Likes Received:
    10,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I know a much simpler formula. If you want one - o.k. If you don't want one - o.k.
     
  9. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe,... but that is a completely separate topic from abortion. :)
    So called postpartum abortion is an oxymoron.

    -Meta
     
  10. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BTW folks, here is the current list of suggested cutoff points, possible exceptions, and other suggestions:
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-the-abortion-debate.538967/#post-1069445807

    Where Should The Cutoff Line for Abortions be Placed?:
    -Lovemaking (Week 0): Because Any Form of Abortion is Murder
    -Conception (Week 0): Because Life Begins at Conception
    -Conception (Week 0): Because since no one knows exactly when a zygote becomes a child, it must be assumed to qualify as one
    -????????? (Week 12): Reason TBD
    -Viability (Week 20): Because the earliest surviving baby was born at just over 21 weeks
    -Thalamic Afferents (Week 20): Because its been theorized that connections between afferents may be capable of pain transmission
    -Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 23): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Thalamocortical Fibers

    -Viability (Week 24): Because that's when the law defines a fetus as becoming a child
    -Viability (Week 24): Because that's when a fetus is able to live outside the woman without artificial means
    -Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers
    -Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 23-29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers
    -Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 20-29): Because this is the period in which a fetus develops the structures necessary for pain perception
    -Mental Life (Week 29): Because fetal consciousness cannot and has not been observed to occur before this point

    -Birth (Week ??): Because That is When a Baby No Longer Depends On Its Mother to Live
    -Birth (Week ??): Because Women Should Always Have the Right to do What They Want With Their Body
    -There should be Exceptions in cases of Rape
    -There should be Exceptions if Health of the Mother is Threatened
    -There should be Exceptions if Life of the Mother is Threatened
    -There should be Exceptions for Certain Fetal Abnormalities
    -There should be No Exceptions to the Cutoff Point

    Other Ideas:

    -Meta
     
  11. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It'll be nice to see this issue finally resolved.
     
  12. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Simpler is usually preferred when comparing to less simple options of otherwise relatively equal merit.
    But simple does not always mean best. Can I assume that you're in the camp that believes the cutoff
    point for allowable abortions should be at birth?

    If so, then what is your reasoning for why that should be the cutoff?

    -Meta
     
  13. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    It was resolved in 1973...….this forum hardly resolves anything....
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
  14. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    abort:
    1. carry out or undergo the abortion of (a fetus).
    2. bring to a premature end because of a problem or fault.

    abortion:
    1. the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
    2. an object or undertaking regarded by the speaker as unpleasant or badly made or carried out.

    -There should be No Exceptions to the Cutoff Point
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,612
    Likes Received:
    11,197
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know, obstetric lubricant used for cattle can make a lot of stuff possible...
     
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    After it's born killing it is murder, not abortion.....
     
  17. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    There's the "women as cattle'" theme and more obsession with women's reproduction....
     
  18. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    By 12 weeks, the baby’s senses are developing, it looks pretty human, and it’s a compromise between “no abortions” and “no restrictions”.
     
  19. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol, those are some pretty good questions actually,... maybe you should have set this thread up instead of me.

    Though I think it should be noted that 'human life' is probably not a great criteria... because it can mean vastly different things to different people.
    In the strictest interpretation of the term, it is any living thing with human DNA. Which of course would include individual human cells,
    those existing both after, immediately at, and even before the point of conception. And yet to others, 'human life' implies something different...
    It may to them imply a being which is unique and separate in some way from others. An individual. But how one measure that spurs yet even more differences of opinion.
    One might say that one becomes an individual at the point at which their parent's DNA combines to form a new unique set of DNA,
    others might say that one is not an individual until they are removed from their mothers womb and separated from the umbilical cord.
    And still others might have yet a different view...

    Personally though, I'd simply toss the idea of using 'human life' as a criteria completely out the window, and use something a bit more narrowly defined instead. 'Mental life' or Pain perception are my go-to standards. As for any rights which should be incurred/granted to beings achieving 'Mental life', I'd simply go with the moral idea that such beings should not be made to suffer through no fault of their own. To go a bit further, I might even say that they should not be denied the realization of any desire to live they might have. But to that end, if there is no capacity for suffering and or no ability to desire life, then there is no moral reason to protect such an unborn entity. No moral issue... at least not on that end. The moral issue of individual autonomy of the mother is always present of course. The mother has a right to do what they want with their body and its contents.... to an extent... but that right should be balanced against the previously mentioned right of one not to have suffering inflicted upon them or to be denied the realization of their desire to live. So naturally, if an unborn entity cannot experience suffering and has no desire to live, then the mother's rights supersede anything else.

    What should happen when suffering is possible and desire for life not completely out of the question? Well then those rights have to be balanced against each other somehow. My thinking is that if the mother had sufficient access to abortion procedures prior to the mental life stage of development, then her right to autonomy shouldn't be placed above the right of another to not be forced to endure suffering. I think there should be exceptions for things like rape, defects, or serious risk to life, as well as for cases in where the mother did not have reasonable opportunity to abort prior to the mental life stage. I base this simply on the idea of responsibility. Any situation in which rights conflict with each other and have to be balanced, is a regrettable situation imo. But one has to consider who or what caused such a no-win situation to occur. It certainly can't be considered to be the fetus's fault, or at least, it cannot be said that a fetus takes any conscious actions which result in such a situation. The fetus does not ask to be conceived. It is the parents who kick that process off, and if a mother waits too long to get an abortion afterwards, assuming no external interference, its safe to say she is responsible for the situation that results.

    -Meta
     
  20. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hoping we can fix that (or at least improve the situation) by showing each side how to make better arguments/why their current arguments are flawed.

    -Meta
     
  21. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need 3 things first --

    - a supermajority in the Senate

    - a majority in the U.S. House

    - the POTUS being in the same party as the others.

    Never going to happen.
     
  22. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait... why do we need that? This isn't like the immigration issue you know, where just about everyone agrees that the current system is flawed.
    And while everyone might not agree with them, and while there may yet be rom for improvement, the current laws on abortion are at least fairly clear about things.
    And there are a lot of people out there who think that the current laws are just fine the way they are.

    The way I see things, it isn't really congress that needs to change in this case,... after all, most of the heated disagreement is occurring between us regular every day citizens...
    in other words, we're the ones who need to change, we're the ones who should come to some understanding which each other, not congress (at least in this case).

    But having said that, even if all we needed was just for congress to come together and agree on some law to be passed.
    Why would a party supermajority in the house and senate and accompanying same-party president be needed for that either?
    You see... back in the day, we used to have these things called compromise and bipartisanship... if those things can't exist anymore, I think that speaks to a much larger issue than abortion.

    -Meta
     
    yiostheoy likes this.
  23. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    … The immigration issue … what another rat hole.
     
  24. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Federal legislation will not resolve the abortion debate.

    For abortion you need to get around Roe.

    Only a Federal Amendment will do that.
     
  25. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well.... that depends on what exactly you'd be trying to change about current law.
    A constitutional amendment might be required, or it might not be, that all depend on what's being changed and how.

    But to know what/how we're wanting things to change, if we even want things to change at all, again, that would require we the people to first come to some sort of consensus.
    But currently, people are just sort of all over the place on this issue. And as mentioned before, the arguments being used (even some of the more moderate ones) aren't really that great.

    At least with the immigration issue most folks could quickly come to agreements on some core key principles once you got them thinking more about the fuller picture.
    With that issue, congress is much more the main obstacle. With abortion though the average person and how they talk about the issue seems to be the main blocker to any understanding or change.

    Not to suggest though that we couldn't stand to improve the way we talk about immigration as well...
    Just saying that you can't really blame congress too much for not changing things on abortion when not even the people themselves can agree on how or even if things should change.

    -Meta
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page