How To Finally Resolve the Abortion Debate

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one ever said that it was.
    What we are discussing here, is at what point abortion (which is distinct from pregnancy) should be considered a crime.
    The general sense is that it should not be considered a crime before a particular point in the developmental process
    and that it should be considered a crime after a certain point with certain key exceptions. So again and more specifically,
    the question here is where exactly that point should be. 20, 23, 24, and 29 weeks seem to all be popular options.

    -Meta
     
  2. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

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

    Yup, at BIRTH....not before.




    Yes, and science and facts have shown that to be at 23-24 weeks...it is only an issue if one denies science and facts.





    GoodGAWD! THAT is when it IS! WHAT don't you get about that????????
     
  3. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

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


    I really resent you altering my posts as you did in post 227...do please stop.
     
  4. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A large portion of our legal system is based upon morals. Its a bit difficult to just leave them out.
    You are though right of course that morals are as varied as people are.
    There aren't really any universal moral standards which everyone agrees to.
    But this is why we have democracy.

    -Meta
     
  5. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The connection is that, just as there should be a reasonable threshold set for what should constitute illegal theft vs legal scavenging,
    there should also be a reasonable threshold set for what constitutes illegal abortion vs legal abortion.

    Again, the popular cutoffs seem to be 20 weeks, 23 weeks, 24 weeks, or 29 weeks.

    No, and there are two reasons why.

    1) In all likelihood, I was in no way the cause of them needing such things. Not culpable to their situation in other words.

    2) I only have one heart. Removing it would mean my death. Kidneys are similarly limited. Blood transfusion is a bit different. But then based on the wording of your scenario I'm assuming this would be an indefinite arrangement? (of course, if I'm already dead, I wouldn't care as much... I care a lot though if I have to die for such a thing)

    -Meta
     
  6. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

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


    But a woman being forced to use her body to sustain the life of another is perfectly OK with you?

    That would mean you think women have no right to their own body.


    You: """1) In all likelihood, I was in no way the cause of them needing such things. Not culpable to their situation in other words.""


    That wasn't what I asked. THIS is what I asked:

    If someone need a monthly blood transfusion or a new heart would you be comfortable with them taking yours without your consent?
     
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please note: My posts in posts # 227, 230, and 231 have been altered, they do NOT represent what I said.
     
  8. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those are two completely separate things you know.
    And like I mentioned before, most people understand that women have an inherent right to control their own bodies, but the question here is how to balance those rights with a fetus's right to life/right not to be subjected to pain and suffering through no fault of its own. Just as one's right to swing their fist around ends at the nose of the next person, a woman's right should not extend to the point of extinguishing another's right to life/right not to be subjected to undue pain.

    So we then must ask ourselves when a fetus's rights come into being.
    And we also need to consider how to handle things in the case that a fetus's rights and a woman's rights are in conflict.

    The simplest way in my opinion is to set a cutoff point for abortion based on when a fetus can first be said to have mental life and or be capable of perceiving pain, which gives women ample time to exercise their right to control themselves through abortion by simply aborting any fetus before that point, i.e. before a point within the 23-29 week range.

    Slippery slope argumentation like that is yet another logical fallacy:
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope

    -Meta
     
  9. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    AGAIN, my post in Post # 234 has been altered.
     
  10. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think they haven't budged in the past because people keep using such bad arguments to try and convince one another to move. If we could get folks to start using better arguments, then I really believe we'd start to see more folks move towards a central consensus position. And assuming that consensus position is different from what we have (it may not be that different at all)
    a failure of the congress to put it into law would indicate a failure of our democracy.

    Also note that a super-majority would only be needed if the specific change in question required a constitutional amendment
    (which it may or may not, again, depending on what the change was)

    -Meta
     
  11. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But why ban abortion from the point of conception specifically?...
    ...as opposed to at a point further along in the development process,
    like 20 weeks, 23 weeks, 24 weeks, or 29 weeks?

    I actually use responsibility and culpability as part of the justification of my own position.
    But you can't just take it by itself. What is the woman responsible for that would require
    them to carry to term a pregnancy from the point of conception? The pregnancy perhaps, but beyond that?
    Do a sperm and egg together have rights which must be balanced against a woman's rights?
    It is my view that such rights do not come into being until much latter on in the process.

    -Meta
     
  12. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    Likes Received:
    2,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do not recall and cannot find where I said that. You're probably thinking of somebody else.

    All true, but just because something is factually resolved doesn't mean the anti-choicers will accept it. I honestly don't know what it would take to convince them. They seem immune to reason.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  13. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

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

    Thank you.

    An aside: It's refreshing to see a poster in here who knows how to use the quote function.....
     
  14. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As mentioned in a previous post, one issue there is that it doesn't at all take into account the eventual rights of the fetus. By appearances, it simply assumes that a fetus either has no moral rights or that the mother's rights should always be given precedence, but it does so without explaining why. I mean, it could be true that a mother's rights should always be given precedence, but you wont be convincing anyone who disagrees with that notion unless you also explain why. Something like that can't just be hand-waved away as a given. Same thing for if you consider a fetus as not having any rights. We as human beings ascribe certain rights to one another (morally and legally). If you're going to say a fetus shouldn't be granted the same rights we'd grant anyone else, you need to explain both at what point those rights should be granted as well as why that particular point is chosen.

    The above is probably the main one.
    But I do also want to point out again the appeal to law fallacy, which even folks with more moderate stances can make: e.g. "the cutoff line should be 24 weeks because that's what the law says." I actually agree with 24 weeks as a good cutoff point, but as previously mentioned, to say that the cutoff should be that simply because that's what the law says is a clear appeal to law fallacy. Again, the question here revolves around what the law should be, so it doesn't make any sense to cite the law while doing so.

    Last thing I want to mention here is that people from all ends of the debate seem to have this bad habit of dividing everyone up into either one group or another. But per the OP, there aren't just two positions to take regarding the issue, and in my opinion artificial divisions like that don't really do anything to help us to see eye-to-eye or come towards any sort of consensus.

    -Meta
     
  15. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How so?

    If someone is forced to have a child, doesn't the time which must be dedicated to then raising that child indicate a loss of autonomy?
    And supposing just for a moment a scenario in which they didn't actually have to raise the child after giving birth,
    isn't being forced to simply go through the process of giving birth itself a loss of autonomy?
    In my opinion, such things should not occur without very good reason for it.

    -Meta
     
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

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

    And clearly NOT what I said....as I said, 23-24 weeks is when, ACCORDING TO SCIENCE, the fetus is VIABLE, LOOK THE DAMN WORD UP......so the law THEN puts the cutoff point at 23-24 weeks.


    That IS what the law should be...


    There ARE only TWO positions, either you believe women have the same rights everyone else has (Pro-Choice) or you don't ( Anti-Choice)


    Please note how clearly our words are separated and I didn't alter your post....
     
  17. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're wrong on this point. What counts as a child does indeed depend on what the definition of a child is.
    If you're trying to suggest that the rights given a 'pre-child fetus' should be the same given a 'child'
    in the same way that a 'child' and an 'adult' can be said to have many of the same rights,
    then I don't necessarily disagree with you on that. (see below)

    People have different definitions, because it is an arbitrary classification.
    In other words, there is no right or wrong answer.

    Some people say that one is a child until they turn 16. Others say you don't stop being a child till 18. Still more say 21, 13, 30, or some other age. Some say the age is different for different sexes or different cultures or different periods in history. There is no hard and fast rhyme or reason for the specific point picked, but who's to say that any of these people are wrong about where the upper bound of child-status lies? Opinions on the lower bound for child status are just as varied and arbitrary, which is why on the abortion issue, I say something else... something more defined and specific, should be used for establishing a legal cutoff point.

    One can't discover the age range between which someone should be considered a child. Because again, its nothing more than an arbitrary classification based mostly on opinion.
    But what you can discover, is the point at which a fetus is capable a feeling pain, when its heart starts to function, when its capable of breathing or living outside of the womb.
    These are factors which can be discovered, which is why I agree with you that the child designation shouldn't matter for this debate and we ought to be discussing more concrete standards like viability, mental life, and or pain perception instead.

    -Meta
     
  18. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Women do have the same rights as everyone else, when someone else isn't inside of them.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2018
  19. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

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

    There is NO person inside the woman.

    Rights canNOT be suspended because a woman gets pregnant...that is a really stupid idea...


    Gee, when can I decide when YOUR rights should be suspended??? I'm sure you won't mind since rights mean so little to you :)
     
  20. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More like curtailed a little bit.

    She's not being put in prison, she's not being forced to do hard labor (well, except during the delivery :wink:).

    I think they even have special supplemental nutrition programs for low-income pregnant woman these days.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2018
  21. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What rights do you have that I can "curtail" a littler bit?

    Why do you think women aren't fully human?



    Your happiness at what women suffer in labor is as sick as your idea that rape involves fun...





    Incoherent rantings...
     
  22. Bassman

    Bassman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,876
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Because at the point of Conception, God imparts the eternal soul to the new life. And each child is a gift from God.
     
  23. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only violation of individual autonomy which yields a conceptus is rape, which no one advocates.
    Maybe they would be, if individual autonomy could sensibly be isolated from morality; but of course we're not living in that universe.
    Like hell I am.
    That isn't what you said to begin with.
    Then how the hell can anyone know the answer?
    So how many more times do you figure you're gonna have to repeat this lie to make it true?
    Actually that is not a whit more discoverable than the very thing you just declared undiscoverable.
     
  24. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe it WILL require a Constitutional amendment. That is my whole point.

    Anything that Congress passes on this will get overturned in Federal court. It won't even go into force. A Fed judge will suspend it immediately.
     
  25. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,835
    Likes Received:
    7,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm going with 20 weeks.

    This gives the mother sufficient time to realize she's pregnant and do some thinking about her options. This is also a compromise with the anti-abortionists. Where I to have my own way, I would probably only limit late-term abortions to medically necessary procedures or upon the discovery of birth defects. Seeing as how the vast majority of late-term abortions already fall under those categories, not much would change there. I see no reason to impose arbitrary time limits other than the need to compromise with those who'd prefer women not have medical control over their bodies because right now there are still enough of them to still make a woman's life hard for their own selfish reasons.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page