Abortion Stopped In Utah

[strollingbones]

Listen up liberals: Killing innocents is murder.

Liberals are all for killing unborn babies yet they want to do away with the death penalty for convicted murders.

and yet its the conservatives who ride around with bumbstickers saying...

"cant feed them dont breed them"

pro fetus not pro baby?

 

[Agnapostate]

I reject the premise of your question. The killing of innocent babies doesn't depend on the absolutism or relativism of any other thing we can debate is right or wrong.

Quick, go google some more latin.

Is that so? I doubt you've ever encountered a utilitarian justification for abortion rights; it's not something typically trotted out. Here's something I scribbled together on the matter about nine months ago on another forum.

There is a rarely mentioned justification for abortion that I would like to bring up in this thread.

The justification is one of interests. Most liberal arguments fall short when it comes to addressing conservative opposition to abortion. But the justification based on interests is remarkably successful in this regard.

The typical opposition to abortion is that it destroys innocent human life. Liberals usually object that the fetus is not "human life." I think this is the wrong issue to be addressing. We can establish that the fetus is human life, just as multitudes of cells throughout the human body are "human life." We cannot, however, establish that the fetus is human life of significant moral value as easily. The embryo lacks moral value entirely because it does not have a single trait of personhood. It is not self-aware, (meaning that it does not have the capacity to view itself as a distinct entity existing over time), it does not have the capability to form rational moral preferences about its future, and it lacks the capacity to feel pain. It does not possess the capacity to feel pain until it is a late fetus.

Hence, the reason that the killing of an embryo or fetus is not morally equivalent to the murder of an older human is because the embryo or fetus (I’ll say fetus for convenience) is not a self-aware being, and does not possess certain necessary traits of personhood, such as the aforementioned self-consciousness, rationality, and for a long time, the capacity to feel pleasure and pain. A fetus does not have the same claim to life as a being that possesses those characteristics, and a fetus lacks personhood. Many nonhuman animals possess greater traits of personhood than a fetus does, and it is considered morally acceptable to kill those animals because they taste good.

As for the common claim that a fetus is a potential person, a potential person does not possess the same moral rights as an actual person. It does not hold that a potential X is equivalent to a current X. While a being is a fetus, it does not possess self-consciousness, that is, the capacity to view itself as a distinct entity over time. It may someday possess self-consciousness and other traits of personhood, such as rationality and the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, but at the moment, it does not. Hence, killing a fetus that lacks the capacity to make rational preferences, (such as the desire to live) is not morally equivalent to killing a being which does possess the capacity to make rational preferences, because killing the latter would deny and prevent the satisfaction of such preferences, which is antithetical to Enlightenment values of liberty and self-determination.

It is more wrong to drop a chicken into a pot of boiling water than it would be an egg. It is more wrong to chop down a venerable oak tree than to pull out an acorn. Recall that just about every cell on your body is a potential person. Recall that the existence of “potential persons” is thwarted by celibacy and contraception, and you do not consider those things to be morally wrong. (Presumably.) The argument regarding the potential personhood of a fetus certainly does not get you very far.

The feminist author Judith Jarvis Thomson has used the following analogy to justify abortion. A famous violinist is stricken with a disease, and requires an extremely rare blood type to survive. You have the blood type, and so a society of music lovers kidnaps you, and attaches your circulatory system to that of the violinist. You could get up and leave if you want to, but if you do, the violinist will die. However, if you remain connected to the violinist for nine months, he will fully recover. Is it morally acceptable for you to disconnect yourself from the violinist? Thomson holds that it is.

To me, this is the wrong example to be using becase the fetus lacks personhood. A better example would be if your circulatory system were attached to that of a rat, and the rat would die if you got up and disconnected yourself. Would disconnecting yourself be acceptable in this instance? I suspect that most conservatives would agree, and the only morally relevant difference between the fetus and the rat is that the rat possesses more traits of personhood than the fetus does.

Most conservatives consider it acceptable to place rat traps in a rat infested area to prevent the rodents from gnawing through food and other supplies. A single rat can probably incur damage of a few dollars, whereas an inconveniently timed pregnancy can incur damages of thousands of dollars. Conservatives may argue that the two situations are not comparable, and to some extent this is true, as a rat is a more advanced being than an early embryo or even a late fetus. It possesses a rudimentary level of self-consciousness and is capable of feeling pain.

Ultimately, we must consider the interests of a woman in not going through nine months of disability and a painful childbirth, as well as whatever economic difficulties an inconveniently timed childbirth may bring outweigh whatever rudimentary interests a fetus that is not a self-aware or rational being has.

 

[raceright]

I reject the premise of your question. The killing of innocent babies doesn't depend on the absolutism or relativism of any other thing we can debate is right or wrong.

Quick, go google some more latin.

Is that so? I doubt you've ever encountered a utilitarian justification for abortion rights; it's not something typically trotted out. Here's something I scribbled together on the matter about nine months ago on another forum.

There is a rarely mentioned justification for abortion that I would like to bring up in this thread.

The justification is one of interests. Most liberal arguments fall short when it comes to addressing conservative opposition to abortion. But the justification based on interests is remarkably successful in this regard.

The typical opposition to abortion is that it destroys innocent human life. Liberals usually object that the fetus is not "human life." I think this is the wrong issue to be addressing. We can establish that the fetus is human life, just as multitudes of cells throughout the human body are "human life." We cannot, however, establish that the fetus is human life of significant moral value as easily. The embryo lacks moral value entirely because it does not have a single trait of person hood. It is not self-aware, (meaning that it does not have the capacity to view itself as a distinct entity existing over time), it does not have the capability to form rational moral preferences about its future, and it lacks the capacity to feel pain. It does not possess the capacity to feel pain until it is a late fetus.

Hence, the reason that the killing of an embryo or fetus is not morally equivalent to the murder of an older human is because the embryo or fetus (I’ll say fetus for convenience) is not a self-aware being, and does not possess certain necessary traits of person hood, such as the aforementioned self-consciousness, rationality, and for a long time, the capacity to feel pleasure and pain. A fetus does not have the same claim to life as a being that possesses those characteristics, and a fetus lacks person hood. Many nonhuman animals possess greater traits of person hood than a fetus does, and it is considered morally acceptable to kill those animals because they taste good.

As for the common claim that a fetus is a potential person, a potential person does not possess the same moral rights as an actual person. It does not hold that a potential X is equivalent to a current X. While a being is a fetus, it does not possess self-consciousness, that is, the capacity to view itself as a distinct entity over time. It may someday possess self-consciousness and other traits of person hood, such as rationality and the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, but at the moment, it does not. Hence, killing a fetus that lacks the capacity to make rational preferences, (such as the desire to live) is not morally equivalent to killing a being which does possess the capacity to make rational preferences, because killing the latter would deny and prevent the satisfaction of such preferences, which is antithetical to Enlightenment values of liberty and self-determination.

It is more wrong to drop a chicken into a pot of boiling water than it would be an egg. It is more wrong to chop down a venerable oak tree than to pull out an acorn. Recall that just about every cell on your body is a potential person. Recall that the existence of “potential persons” is thwarted by celibacy and contraception, and you do not consider those things to be morally wrong. (Presumably.) The argument regarding the potential person hood of a fetus certainly does not get you very far.

The feminist author Judith Jarvis Thomson has used the following analogy to justify abortion. A famous violinist is stricken with a disease, and requires an extremely rare blood type to survive. You have the blood type, and so a society of music lovers kidnaps you, and attachés your circulatory system to that of the violinist. You could get up and leave if you want to, but if you do, the violinist will die. However, if you remain connected to the violinist for nine months, he will fully recover. Is it morally acceptable for you to disconnect yourself from the violinist? Thomson holds that it is.

To me, this is the wrong example to be using because the fetus lacks person hood. A better example would be if your circulatory system were attached to that of a rat, and the rat would die if you got up and disconnected yourself. Would disconnecting yourself be acceptable in this instance? I suspect that most conservatives would agree, and the only morally relevant difference between the fetus and the rat is that the rat possesses more traits of person hood than the fetus does.

Most conservatives consider it acceptable to place rat traps in a rat infested area to prevent the rodents from gnawing through food and other supplies. A single rat can probably incur damage of a few dollars, whereas an inconveniently timed pregnancy can incur damages of thousands of dollars. Conservatives may argue that the two situations are not comparable, and to some extent this is true, as a rat is a more advanced being than an early embryo or even a late fetus. It possesses a rudimentary level of self-consciousness and is capable of feeling pain.

Ultimately, we must consider the interests of a woman in not going through nine months of disability and a painful childbirth, as well as whatever economic difficulties an inconveniently timed childbirth may bring outweigh whatever rudimentary interests a fetus that is not a self-aware or rational being has.

Abortion is between the woman and her God. I would prefer that
women would not abort as I have known only three women who have had abortions and they feel very disturbed that they did this.

There has been a swing nation wide about abortions as of late and I believe women talking to other women who have had abortions has something to do with this.

 

[JW Frogen]

If you had the chance to abort Hilter or Stalin, Ghengis Khan or Britney Spears, would you?

 

[JW Frogen]

I am kinda a yes-man on this one.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Then by all means don't have one.

But don't presume for a second you have the wisdom to make that decision for others.

Yes... because WISDOM is a function which is required to determine if one should kill the child which they conceived through the WISDOM which they imparted through willfully engaging IN THE BEHAVIOR WHICH IS DESIGNED FOR CONCEPTION OF CHILDREN...

BRILLIANT!

Yet another pearl from the High Authority of secular leftism...

All this concern for woman who PASS on their RESPONSIBILITY Which sustains their RIGHT TO CHOOSE... To choose when, where and with whom they engage in sexual intercourse. But absolutely NO CONCERN that woman have been MISINFORMED THAT THEY CAN CASUALLY ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE AND NOT SUSTAIN THE CONSEQUENCES OF DOING SO...

This is where they will launch into the inexplicable 'unintended consequence of runaway STDs in teen age girls... which is followed by the inexplicable 'self esteem' crises in teenage girls... and what EVER shall we do about these TEEN SUICIDES? And the PREGNANCIES... well forgedaboudit...

Well ... since you enjoy legislating sin so much, you would know, wouldn't you?

ROFL... Oh... Look... A fact which didn't go over well... so the Kitty runs to drape it over with a false premise.

What legislation is required for you gals that promote a RIGHT to ABORTIOn to spend more time promoting the RESPONSIBILITY INHERENT IN BEING A WOMAN... and the burden that comes with carrying all of the 'fun parts'...?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

But if you base laws only on belief then you have a theocracy, like the one our founding fathers fought against.

You mean that nation under God?

Murder has no theocratic basis? Rape? Incest? Theft? Perjury?

No, those are all about freedom and liberty...

DO WHAT?

ROFL... You can NOT be serious...

Violence imparted upon another is ALL about freedom and liberty? REALLY?

So when someone murders you... or rapes you... or steals the product of your labor or bears false witness against you, in official procedings, which likely will bear some sanction against you... ALL of that is just about YOUR liberty? DO tell...

None of those LAWS which directly forbid the freedom and liberty of someone else, ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS HAVE SACRED RESPONSIBILITIES TO NOT EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER... AND AS A RESULT THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO MURDER or RAPE OR STEAL FROM OR TO BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST YOU...

Those laws as are ALL LAWS in western jurisprudence which serve JUSTICE, are founded in the Juedeo-Christian principle... the same value system which provides the very CONCEPT of freedom and liberty which you enjoy right this moment. They are laws which speak to the RESPONSIBILITY inherent in EVERY HUMAN RIGHT... such as the right to CHOOSE with whom, where and when a woman has sexual intercourse, comes with the RESPONSIBILITY to choose wisely... to NOT engage in such casually, without the understanding that SHE WILL BEAR THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHILD WHICH IS CONCEIVED THROUGH HER CHOICE... the same PRINCIPLES which sustain your means to exercise your RIGHT TO LIFE, through the PROHIBITION OF ANOTHER'S LAWFUL MEANS TO END YOUR LIFE... when they find YOU an inconvenience, sustain the the means of the conceived child who resulted from THAT CHOICE...

The distinction here is that YOU CLAIM A RIGHT TO TAKE THAT CHILDS LIFE... while you clammer on about the sanctity of your life and the freedon and liberty bearing LAWS prohibiting others from murdering, raping stealing from or bearing false witness against YOU.



ROFLMNAO... And THAT fellow board members is yet another classic example of what stands as the high reasoning of the ideological left which possesses no understanding of the principles on which America rests...

{Freedom and liberty are} two concepts that seem to escape your few working brain cells. All that "god" crap was added long after the country was formed, but then you are not big into learning history so I don't expect you to know that.

No... God was intrinsic in the Founding of the US... and where God is rinsed from the US, America is rinsed from the US...

But what is more to the point Kitty, is that YOU prove precisely THAT, with your implication that laws against Murder, rape, theft and perjury are founded in principles which sustain YOUR Freedom and Liberty'... even while you advocate that such principles are not in play to sustain the next generation. That the SAME RESPONSIBILITIES which prevent someone else from infinging upon or usurping YOUR Rights... are not moderating YOUR RIGHTS... by virtue of your 'special circumstances'... of having DISREGARDED YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES.

BRILLIANT!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

How can something that is not a human die?

Non-human things die all the time.

ROFLMNAO...

No shit... Of course this position would require that the pre-born child is alive; that it exists as a being other than human... Now is the member asserting that they believe the pre-born human to be canine, feline, equine?

Noooooo... 'of course not'... thus the assertion falls to a pedantic poorly considered effort of addle-minded semantics; which fails to serve any point except that the advocates of abortion as a means of BIRTH CONTROL are demanding a RIGHT to kill the most innocent of human life to avoid the responsibilities inherent in their OWN RIGHT TO LIFE.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It has arms and legs and eyes and a brain and a nose and kicks and screams.

And sometimes, it survives a botched abortion, a situation the POTUS believes should be remedied by allowing it to die.

How can something that is not a human die?

Do you understand the mechanics of cell growth? How an egg becomes an infant? Fetus is a collection of stages, and it does not have any of those things for quite some time. Really, you need to open a book or two now, you clearly have not learned much about this and seem to think that once fertilized ... *poof* a baby.

ROFLMNAO... this is an ABSURD ARGUMENT... it is little more than an invalid rationalization to sustain a FALSE RIGHT.

The 'mechanics' of cellular growth do not suggests that the division of cells from the fertilized human egg are ANYTHING LESS than the processes by which a HUMAN BEING IS CREATED...

When one is building an aircraft... they begin with the airframe... where that project is stopped... where the airframe is partially assembled and the process is prevented from continuing... one could argue that what was stopped was NOT an airplane... but the assembled partial airframe which had no means to take flight... but such an argument dismisses the certainty that what was prevented was the assembly of AN AIRPLANE... That had the assembly continued, the aircraft would have taken flight... that it was prevented from doing so does NOT, IN ANY WAY change what it was... The designers were not participating in the creation of a partial airframe... they were not busy assembling a non-viable assembly of several parts... They were building an AIRPLANE and THAT is what was PREVENTED FROM BEING ASSEMBLED.


To suggest that the human embryo, the human fetus is something OTHER than human is absurd on its FACE... that stage of development is NO LESS A part of humanity than ANY OTHER STAGE... distinct ONLY in the simple fact that the human who enjoys the latter stage of development, is not able to visually see the pre-born human...

In my experience, the newst Sonagram technology has done more to buttress the humanity of the pre-born human than any other facet of this issue... as it sets the pre-born human to a two dimensional image wherein the pre-born human is seen for what it is... a baby.

And only a cold blooded, heartless killer... could consider ending the life of that innocent child; only a person with absolutely NO KINSHIP with the species and it's Creator; one who suffers the most lamentable delusion of psychosis could CHOOSE to destroy that life... and it's unlikely that MOST women, who were given the CHOICE, even where their OWN life is at certain risk... would CHOOSE to kill their baby to spare themselves... although, where there was truly no other alternative, they would be justified in doing so.

But this RARE exception is NOT what "Abortion" is about... and the advocates of 'Abortion RIGHTS'... are imparting a certain PERJURY onto the court of public debate, when they breech this RARE exception as the BASIS for this FALSE RIGHT.

It is a VERY rare individual who rejects the right of ANY WOMAN to defend her LIFE from an unjustified attack, wherein she is innocent... where her motives were morally sound... where she is prepared to bear the responsibility of raising the child she conceived when she WILLINGLY engaged in sexual intercourse; but where that baby is a clear and present threat to her own life, despite her best efforts to carry that child to birth...

And the reason that most people do not reject the right of the mother to defend her life is that is EVERYONE'S RIGHT... it is the FIRST RIGHT OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL...

Thus there is no CONTEST that where a woman's LIFE is threatened that she is justified to defend her LIFE... the contest ensues when the left abuse the language through their half cute attempts to argue that the issue is one of Women's HEALTH... That abortion needs to be a RIGHT to defend a women from threats to her 'HEALTH'... meaning she wants to use abortion as a means of BIRTH CONTROL; as any microbe can be a threat to a woman's health... walking into a public SCHOOL is a threat to a woman's health... BEING IN THE HOSPITAL is a threat to a woman's health...

It's yet another instance where the left abuses the language to lower the standards of accpetable public behavior, by REJECTING the RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS... which of course can onyl result in the FREEDOM and LIBERTY which that RIGHT sustained, going to who or whatever that RESPONSIBILTY was transferred; as where ever the RESPONSBILITY GOES... so goes the FREEDOM IT SUSTAINED.

 

[Just A Man]

I took care of the babies I made. You fail to care for your child you go to jail and the state puts them up for adoption to a loving family. We do it all the time and it works.

Let me get this straight -- I get counseling to help me decide if I should kill another human being. Who in the world could be in favor of killing a defensive tiny baby for convenience. Don't answer that!!!

The more we abort the more uncivilized we become. Only a barbarian, a savage or an insane person would kill a defensive tiny baby.

 

[midcan5]

Utah never was an exemplar in individual freedoms, so this is hardly news.

If one, or more, out of five conceptions end naturally arguing that a person is formed at conception is a bit of a moral stretch. Abortion arguments mean little because it demands nothing of the moralist, it is a fake cry, because you are not going to have to make the decision on whether and who will raise this child. It is too easy to preach about a potential child when a living one dies every few seconds. When I see the same people who protest abortion demanding food for all children, or supporting children here and across the world you will all cease being hypocrites, till then I will repeat this ad infinitum. When UNICEF doesn't know what to do as hunger and death have been cured then we can work on education to prevent tragic mistakes. How many who claim this pro life stance, reserve the same moral position for a war such as Iraq, or care about Darfur. And while it is easy to be moral over another, how many would take the girl into their house or support the child either in their home or financially. Abortion is the hypocrite's crutch nothing more.

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

Boston Review — Judith Jarvis Thomson

 

[Seraega]

I took care of the babies I made. You fail to care for your child you go to jail and the state puts them up for adoption to a loving family. We do it all the time and it works.

Let me get this straight -- I get counseling to help me decide if I should kill another human being. Who in the world could be in favor of killing a defensive tiny baby for convenience. Don't answer that!!!

The more we abort the more uncivilized we become. Only a barbarian, a savage or an insane person would kill a defensive tiny baby.

I think it's quite the opposite. It's the barbarian societies like Iran, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Columbia, etc... that oppose abortion. Enlightened societies understand that forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is sick.

 

[Agnapostate]

Venezuela?

 

[Seraega]

Venezuela?

What? A woman convicted of having an abortion in that country gets up to 2 years in jail. That's pretty barbarian imo.

 

[garyd]

Yeah right so if you want to have a welfare state you should have five homeless people move in with you...

The notion that me being against abortion as a means of birth control means that I should be responsible for all the children of selfish assholes who think they can have sex without consequences is utterly retarded. You may as well say that if I wish to end crime I should personally shoot every prisoner in the state pen.

 

[brewerboy]

Its crap like this that ALMOST makes me think that there should be mandatory psychological exams for any pregnant teenagers (and the father).

 

[KittenKoder]

Yeah right so if you want to have a welfare state you should have five homeless people move in with you...

The notion that me being against abortion as a means of birth control means that I should be responsible for all the children of selfish assholes who think they can have sex without consequences is utterly retarded. You may as well say that if I wish to end crime I should personally shoot every prisoner in the state pen.

Make it the fed pen and I'll help fund it.

 

[dilloduck]

Yeah right so if you want to have a welfare state you should have five homeless people move in with you...

The notion that me being against abortion as a means of birth control means that I should be responsible for all the children of selfish assholes who think they can have sex without consequences is utterly retarded. You may as well say that if I wish to end crime I should personally shoot every prisoner in the state pen.

Make it the fed pen and I'll help fund it.

that warm and fuzzy side is showing again KK

 

[KittenKoder]

Yeah right so if you want to have a welfare state you should have five homeless people move in with you...

The notion that me being against abortion as a means of birth control means that I should be responsible for all the children of selfish assholes who think they can have sex without consequences is utterly retarded. You may as well say that if I wish to end crime I should personally shoot every prisoner in the state pen.

Make it the fed pen and I'll help fund it.

that warm and fuzzy side is showing again KK

I'm not evil ... I just hate evil people.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Enlightened societies understand that forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is sick.

Congrats... ya made the SIG!