Ban all abortions and the female orgasm please
Seriously, fuck the abortion debate, I'm just glad this might possibly chip away at the Fed's power over the states.Will this bill reach what I can only assume is its goal? Will it do anything at all? Who knows, but I can fully back trying to chip away at judicial overreach of a federal flavor. Overreach is a fucking great way to infringe on individual states rights AND piss a ton of people off through preventable means.
You have identified the focal point of the disagreement, this is good. And yeah, there are no easy answers there, but this is the real starting point of any useful discussion because we haven't built a bunch of strawmen yet.For the former, no, because stoning the women to death is a violation of her rights, and I personally don’t believe abortion is a violation of anyone’s rights. This is gonna be our impasse so might as well agree to disagree.
Only if they're former confederate states.Its not federal law, no bill was passed. Its a court decision and the aim is to challenge that. I'm curious, do you say the same about all those marijuana laws currently in defiance of federal law?
I don't want to make laws based on the bible either. But its a fact that a fertilized egg is unique and it is human. It isnt just a body part of the mother like a spleen or a kidney is, it has its own genetic code. Barring no complications and no intervention, it will be born as a unique individual. So then the argument to me is when do you attain rights, when are you no longer allowed to kill it, if you are allowed to at all.I don't personally think a fertalized egg is a human being. I suppose if you take the bible literally it does, at least if you read between the lines, but we don't make laws based on the bible.
I'm pro-choice, but believe women ought to be making better choices in general leading up to conception.I don't want to make laws based on the bible either. But its a fact that a fertilized egg is unique and it is human. Linguistically, you can "be human" but not actually be a human. It is human-like, but not necessarily qualifying as an actual human being. It isnt just a body part of the mother like a spleen or a kidney is, it has its own genetic code. Barring no complications and no intervention, it will be born as a unique individual. While it may have unique genetic markers, it is an inert kit until fertilized. So then the argument to me is when do you attain rights, when are you no longer allowed to kill it, if you are allowed to at all.
If you say it doesn't deserve rights until its born, I see functionally no difference between a premature baby and a 7 or 8 month old baby. I don't see why location should determine personhood, as that is the only functional difference. It may seem like location, but the real qualifier is autonomy; within the womb a fetus requires umbilical nourishment and the mother's auto-immune defenses A preemy may require additional care from respirators and feeding tubes, but it's a significant difference from the natural womb environment. There is nothing else really in terms of intelligence and responsiveness or development between the two. To me, there isnt any functional difference between the two. This is as arbitrary as the difference between the U.S. recognizing different levels of rights between a 17-year old and an 18-year old, not just in voting/smoking/drinking privileges, but military eligibility and sexual court cases regarding the age of the defendants; these are still debated, but the cut-off line is established and agreed upon as a society. The sapiency argument for personhood also means there isnt any logical reason killing an infant should be criminalized
So lets go to viability then. Viability isnt a static thing though. As I showed we have an infant surviving at 21 weeks. That's only possible in certain locations however where cutting edge technology and service is available. So if a pregnant woman were to travel from New York to a coal town in west virginia and back to New York again at 22 weeks pregnant she would go from having a baby to a clump of cells back to a baby again. That makes no sense to me logically speaking to have personhood only dependent on the technology available in your local area.
So go down to heartbeat or twelve weeks or whatever it is you want, feeling pain etc. I don't see why this should be the cut off either. A heartbeat isnt whats necessary to make you alive or a separate individual or intelligent enough to say "no I dont want to be killed." Neither is pain. These are emotionally based points to choose, not logical ones unless you also are full animal rights too. Returning to the under/over 18 point, it is largely only relevant to alcohol consumption(liver development) and smoking(lung development) but we apply it to military service and voting as "this kind of feels right" despite proof of good service by teens lying about their age in instances. I feel 12 weeks is still a valid abortion period but we ought to, as a society, agree to a specific period like 24-28 weeks to serve as the cut-off for infants-have-human-rights, and it can be shimmied from their by activists from either side. Funny enough these people are often pro-abortion which leaves me head scratching but I digress.
What I'm left with as the most consistent most logical point to me of where a human life begins and where it should be treated as a human being is where it begins, where two haploid cells form one unique diploid entity with its own genetic coding unlike anyone else's. We are creatures of passion more than logic, and this is a flimsy stance to hold.
If it did just the first two I would be fine.Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the morning after pill?
Its the last one I'm not fond of. For me though even though I see things this way I can compromise on positions as well. Even though I dont think rape and incest should be aborted if a bill makes those exceptions I still support it, because right now its hundreds of thousands being killed yearly, over 10,000 of which are perfectly viable when killed and are non-medical abortions. I am happy with most anything that reduces that.
- Temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary
- Prevents fertilization
- Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus
Or you know, women for whom contraceptives failed? If female contraceptives had a 100% success rate, your statement would have merit. But they don't.Outside of those situations the only women who would really need abortions are dumb teenagers and sluts who want a get out of jail free card for not taking any contraceptives. That's about as much of a human right as having car insurance is for an alcoholic.
Pregnancies might be natural and all, but people are inherently selfish, and not everyone possesses that inherent maternal instinct some women do.How are people so removed from the reality of their own bodies and the nature of their existence on this planet that they see not being able to medically intervene in a natural biological process as a form of force?
Getting pregnant and carrying a baby to term is as natural as breathing or eating. Intervening in that process with chemicals or surgical tools or even some forms of contraception is a deviation from the natural and normal.
The problem with this viewpoint is that it completely negates what rights are there for. We didn't invent the idea that 'murder is bad' to prevent blastocysts from being destroyed, we did it to protect people, and a blastocyst is not a person by any reasonable definition. You might argue that the concept of personhood is vague and somewhat arbitrary, but this is only a winning argument if you're willing to ignore the complexities of human life.What I'm left with as the most consistent most logical point to me of where a human life begins and where it should be treated as a human being is where it begins, where two haploid cells form one unique diploid entity with its own genetic coding unlike anyone else's. If you value potential to be sapient at all, here is where you draw the line, because if you insert it anywhere else there isnt any reason to just go back further down the line. Everything else is an arbitrary cut off or means that there shouldn't be much of any issue with killing a new born.
With autonomy that's just it. It doesnt need the womb once viable. You can remove it and keep it alive just fine. There isn't a difference at all in the premie and the unborn here, and when determining when something should be considered human the qualities that the being possesses are what needs to be factored in.I'll bite:
I'm pro-choice, but believe women ought to be making better choices in general leading up to conception.
We have varying legal degrees of killing humans already though, with manslaughter differing from murder and murder being subdivided between 1st and 2nd degrees. Point being that we accept killing as an inevitability of the human condition and have varying degrees of punishment for it based on circumstances and intent. There's a lot of meaningful intention in not causing suffering by aborting an infant that can't or won't be cared for, and not placing strain on social systems and programs in place to support the unwanted. Murdering a newborn is distressing because it was carried to term generally with the intent of it being cared for by somebody, where an abortion is stopping a life before it really gets started. Prevention!With autonomy that's just it. It doesnt need the womb once viable. You can remove it and keep it alive just fine. There isn't a difference at all in the premie and the unborn here, and when determining when something should be considered human the qualities that the being possesses are what needs to be factored in.
For this it also isnt the same to me as deciding a cut off like drinking or consent or the military. This is life and death, whether or not you are allowed to end a human life. That shouldnt be determined by a completely arbitrary cut off like that because of just how significant the act of ending a human life is.
With deciding an arbitrary line like that at birth the point is to get at the morality of it. There shouldnt be a moral difference here between killing an infant and a late term abortion, just like there isnt a gulf of moral difference in me buying a drink for a 20 and 364 day old and a 21 year old. There may be a legal one but you shouldnt be morally outraged by one and perfectly fine with the other, and yet the idea of murdering a newborn is disstressing and sickening for many of the same people who are perfectly fine with allowing a late term non-medical abortion. That's what I am getting at, the cognitive dissonance between one and the other.
I know it's anecdotal, but I personally know two different girls who were pregnant in high school from rape (who I actually believe and don't think were trying to cover up what happened), how rare can it really be?Its incredibly rare and from the pro-life perspective you don't kill an infant if the dad turns out to be a rapist.