Zone1 The abortion debate - Understanding Both Sides

[sartre play]

The woman's life comes first. Except for health reasons, rape or incest would probably be willing to compromise on limits of 18 weeks.
though it really is not any of my business.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nope. One divine birth does not equate thinking it can happen again and again and again.

Yeah, that would be almost as absurd as believing that chdish, magical nonsense happened in the first place.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, that would be almost as absurd as believing that chdish, magical nonsense happened in the first place.

Nothing more bigoted than an anti-religious bigot.

Nothing more full of un-earned and un-deserved hubris either.

 

[Canon Shooter]

They did a good job across the board so far. Roe done, gun rights improved, Congress told to do their job instead of passing it off onto an unelected bureaucracy. .

Gay and inter-racial marriage?

 

[martybegan]

Gay and inter-racial marriage?

Only Thomas talks about Obergfell, and he doesn't talk about Loving. The two are not intertwined.

To me Obergfell is overreach. Obergfell should have let States decide legislatively if they want to ISSUE SSM licenses or not, while requiring them to continue ACCEPTING all marriage licenses from other States like they did before, SSM's or not.

It boils down to the concept of Substantive due process, something me and Thomas agree doesn't exist.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Only Thomas talks about Obergfell, and he doesn't talk about Loving. The two are not intertwined.

To me Obergfell is overreach. Obergfell should have let States decide legislatively if they want to ISSUE SSM licenses or not, while requiring them to continue ACCEPTING all marriage licenses from other States like they did before, SSM's or not.

It boils down to the concept of Substantive due process, something me and Thomas agree doesn't exist.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall if Kavanaugh or Barrett decide to go after inter-racial marriage.

That'd be a hoot...

 

[martybegan]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall if Kavanaugh or Barrett decide to go after inter-racial marriage.

That'd be a hoot...

They won't, because inter-racial/inter-tribe marriage has a long history in humanity. SSM is a recent creation.

 

[Canon Shooter]

They won't, because inter-racial/inter-tribe marriage has a long history in humanity. SSM is a recent creation.

Zealot-speak for "Thomas married a white broad!"

 

[Pellinore]

Abortion is a very controversial topic which has been debated extensively on USMB. Usually the battle lines are drawn and the two sides are argued without one side giving any empathy (for lack of a better word) to the other. It quickly becomes a "I'm Right and Your Wrong" debate.

So I am attempting a different approach in this thread. I will state strengths and weaknesses to both sides of the issue. (Actually it might be a little nearsighted to say there are only two sides,but the two main sides are either pro-life and pro-choice.)

Okay, the main axiom where the battle lines are drawn is about when a person starts being a person, or better said, at what point should a person's life be protected by law.

The pro-life position is that an individual's life starts at conception, when the sperm and the egg unite and form a zygote. Biologically speaking, the is the first stage of an individuals life cycle. Many (not all) prochoice try to deny this fact. However, on the prochoice side, it is true that a zygote has no brain, has no heart, has no awareness of it's self...it doesn't know of it's own existence; and that begs the question "Does that single cell" have rights?" Does that single cell have the right to it's mother's body for 9 months? Those that are extreme pro-life side say "Yes" to both questions, and of course the pro-choice say "No". The extreme pro-choice side would say that the mother's rights trumps the rights of the preborn until birth and that a woman has the right to terminate "the clump of cells" in her body until right before it is born. Many, many people fall between the extreme pro-choice side and the extreme pro-life side. The Inbetweeners (I just made that word up) believe that abortion should be allowed under some conditions, and those conditions can very greatly.

My own position: Conceptually I am with the extreme pro-life. A human life begins at conception and that is the beginning of a "person" and that person should have the right to life. However, to be practical, I realize that this position would be a nightmare to enforce and does not have the political support to be legally in place. So from a practical position I am for women having access to the day after pill or the abortion pill which cause a miscarriage up to 10 weeks after sex (if I understand correctly). 10 weeks should be plenty of time, no pregnancy test needed, jut take a pill if unplanned sex happens.

Of course there should be exceptions when the mother's life is in danger.

That said, I don't necessary agree with those that don't hold my view on abortion, but I am trying to understand where they are coming from.

Is the big question that of when life begins? I don't believe the government can ever take a stance on that. If nothing else, it is a religious issue; many Christians take the same position as you do, that life begins at conception or another early stage and therefore a baby's life is at stake, but many in the Jewish religion (for example) believe that life begins when the baby's first breath is drawn, and not before. That belief is drawn from their holy texts and is every bit as legitimate as any Christian belief.

That suggests to me that any time our federal or any state government takes an official position on when a human life begins, they are acting in violation of the First Amendment. We haven't seen any legal action on this front, but it is still early in the process. It is entirely possible that we start seeing lawsuits from Jewish people (or those of another non-Christian religion) for just that violation.

So if the government can't take your belief, or my belief, or that Jewish person's belief, or anyone else's belief into consideration, how does it make a legal standard? Precedent suggests that the law deal with it as it does with any other religious issue, and allow each person to make their own choices based on their individual conscience. That would make it an issue of medical privacy, which therefore cannot be infringed by the federal or (thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment) any state government, and that means Roe v. Wade.

That's the argument.

 

[JoeMoma]

Is the big question that of when life begins? I don't believe the government can ever take a stance on that. If nothing else, it is a religious issue; many Christians take the same position as you do, that life begins at conception or another early stage and therefore a baby's life is at stake, but many in the Jewish religion (for example) believe that life begins when the baby's first breath is drawn, and not before. That belief is drawn from their holy texts and is every bit as legitimate as any Christian belief.

That suggests to me that any time our federal or any state government takes an official position on when a human life begins, they are acting in violation of the First Amendment. We haven't seen any legal action on this front, but it is still early in the process. It is entirely possible that we start seeing lawsuits from Jewish people (or those of another non-Christian religion) for just that violation.

So if the government can't take your belief, or my belief, or that Jewish person's belief, or anyone else's belief into consideration, how does it make a legal standard? Precedent suggests that the law deal with it as it does with any other religious issue, and allow each person to make their own choices based on their individual conscience. That would make it an issue of medical privacy, which therefore cannot be infringed by the federal or (thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment) any state government, and that means Roe v. Wade.

That's the argument.

Of course the government can take a stance when life begins, otherwise there would be no laws against murder for anyone of any age.

I am not an expert on Jewish beliefs, so for now I will take your word that it is Jewish doctrine that life begins with the first breath. However, it is scientific fact that the pre-born organism inside the woman's womb is alive. It is not simply a dead clump of tissue that suddenly comes to life as it starts breathing air. One does not have to look to religion for a determination of the beginning of an individual's life because science provides an answer. However, when government should step in to protect that life is a subjective manner.

You do have accounting on the side of your view of when life begins. In our society, a birth certificate is issued when a child is born and the age of that person for calculated from that day forward. And when a person dies, a death certificate is issued. And family usually forward a copy of the death certificate to any institutes that require official notification of the person's death. I know of no one that has been issued a "Conception" certificate documenting the day he was conceived.

 

[martybegan]

Zealot-speak for "Thomas married a white broad!"

And that burns you, doesn't it.

No, it's recognizing the simple fact that if people want something as new and radical as SSM it should have been done legislatively.

Inter-race/tribe marriages have been around for millennia. SSM was invented 20-30 years ago as a concept.

 

[Pellinore]

Of course the government can take a stance when life begins, otherwise there would be no laws against murder for anyone of any age.

I am not an expert on Jewish beliefs, so for now I will take your word that it is Jewish doctrine that life begins with the first breath. However, it is scientific fact that the pre-born organism inside the woman's womb is alive. It is not simply a dead clump of tissue that suddenly comes to life as it starts breathing air. One does not have to look to religion for a determination of the beginning of an individual's life because science provides an answer. However, when government should step in to protect that life is a subjective manner.

You do have accounting on the side of your view of when life begins. In our society, a birth certificate is issued when a child is born and the age of that person for calculated from that day forward. And when a person dies, a death certificate is issued. And family usually forward a copy of the death certificate to any institutes that require official notification of the person's death. I know of no one that has been issued a "Conception" certificate documenting the day he was conceived.

Granted, I was talking about the time between conception and birth. No reasonable person would argue against the fact that by the time the child is born, life has happened, and that is when certificates are ordered (good point, there) and murder charges always stick.

I disagree, though, that science can prove "life," because the term is subjective. Science can show us when fertilization, implantation, brain activity, a heartbeat, viability, and breathing have all occurred, but the differentiation that still remains is which of these constitute "life."

 

[JoeMoma]

Science can show us when fertilization, implantation, brain activity, a heartbeat, viability, and breathing have all occurred,

And all of those things occur for something that is living and cannot happen for something that is not.

I don't think we are using the same definition of "life".

 

[JoeMoma]

Granted, I was talking about the time between conception and birth. No reasonable person would argue against the fact that by the time the child is born, life has happened, and that is when certificates are ordered (good point, there) and murder charges always stick.

Who is to say who is a "reasonable person". I learned years ago in high school biology class that a full term pregnancy is 40 weeks long. Many "reasonable people" would say that since a premature baby born at the 36th week of pregnancy is considered to be a life, then a baby (hope you don't mind me using that term) inside the mother's womb at 39 weeks must also be a life since it is more developed that the premature baby born at 36 weeks. This reasoning, in my opinion, is why the vast majority of people are against late term abortions. However, if life begins with the first breath of air, then aborting that clump of cells that is 39 weeks along but not yet born shouldn't be an issue. Is the person who believes the pre-born baby at 39 weeks is not a life an unreasonable person. Would a person that believes the baby born premature at 36 weeks to not yet be a life be an unreasonable person? Would a person who believe's life begins when a baby speaks it's first words be an unreasonable person?

 

[Pellinore]

Who is to say who is a "reasonable person". I learned years ago in high school biology class that a full term pregnancy is 40 weeks long. Many "reasonable people" would say that since a premature baby born at the 36th week of pregnancy is considered to be a life, then a baby (hope you don't mind me using that term) inside the mother's womb at 39 weeks must also be a life since it is more developed that the premature baby born at 36 weeks. This reasoning, in my opinion, is why the vast majority of people are against late term abortions. However, if life begins with the first breath of air, then aborting that clump of cells that is 39 weeks along but not yet born shouldn't be an issue. Is the person who believes the pre-born baby at 39 weeks is not a life an unreasonable person. Would a person that believes the baby born premature at 36 weeks to not yet be a life be an unreasonable person? Would a person who believe's life begins when a baby speaks it's first words be an unreasonable person?

This is straying from the point. The issue is abortion, which is no longer an issue once the baby is born. The question therefore is about at what point during gestation does life begin.

 

[JoeMoma]

This is straying from the point. The issue is abortion, which is no longer an issue once the baby is born. The question therefore is about at what point during gestation does life begin.

Actually I did not stray beyond the point, but hopefully we can simply agree to disagree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You die after you take your last breath just like you're born when you take your first one.

Are you alive before you take your first breath?

 

[Red Front]

Granted, I was talking about the time between conception and birth. No reasonable person would argue against the fact that by the time the child is born, life has happened, and that is when certificates are ordered (good point, there) and murder charges always stick.

I disagree, though, that science can prove "life," because the term is subjective. Science can show us when fertilization, implantation, brain activity, a heartbeat, viability, and breathing have all occurred, but the differentiation that still remains is which of these constitute "life."

Life happens at conception, however, that doesn't by default make that life a human being or person. A cell extracted from my finger is human and it's alive until it dies. In the case of a zygote or an embryo, it is likewise human and alive, and it's attached to a woman's uterus. Another way to put it is that the life that is conceived is a potential human being depending upon an actual human being to actualize itself into a human being. Is the woman (the human being) morally obligated to remain pregnant for that zygote, embryo, or fetus? Conservatives would say yes unless the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. I would respond, isn't losing your job when you're poor, not a life-threatening event? Have you ever experienced homelessness before? Moreover, pregnancy is dangerous, it comes with many hazards, and it completely disrupts a woman's life, for nine months. Then you have to recover after the pregnancy, that's at least another six months. Is a woman (an actual human being) obligated to actualize the potential of a zygote or embryo, that's attached to her uterus? I don't believe she is, especially when we are living in a capitalist society that is so indifferent to the plight of the working-class and poor.

A conservative might say: Well I don't want to pay for her abortion.

If you force her to remain pregnant, you're going to end up paying much more. About 80% of our prison population is comprised of men that were raised in poverty, by single mothers, in crime and drug-infested communities. A considerable % of criminals and homeless people were raised in foster care. At the age of 18, they're "let loose", and they're on their own, often resulting in them becoming homeless.

​

In a capitalist system, such people are left out in the street. Forcing women to carry a zygote or embryo to term, in a heartless, capitalist society, results in more pain and suffering for everyone. In other words, it's more expensive than allowing a woman to decide for herself if she is ready or not to become a mother. Ending her pregnancy is much cheaper in a capitalist country where people are abandoned out in the street and can't find a job to support themselves. If you argue that the termination of the zygote or embryo will result in human beings not existing. You're right, those zygotes and embryos, those undeveloped fetuses, didn't develop into human beings or persons, hence no human beings were violated or murdered. More, if you believe that these zygotes and embryos, undeveloped fetuses have spirits attached to them. Then that's no problem, because those spirits will just return to heaven, where they came from. Correct? The ghost returns to heaven, to wait for another embryo or fetus to jump into.

The ghost will simply jump into another embryo, in a woman that actually wants to be a mom. Isn't that cool?



I'd also like to add, with respect to paying for abortions with our tax dollars. Such an objection assumes the federal government is funded by taxes, which is an erroneous assumption made by most Americans, regardless of their political affiliation:

​

State and local governments depend upon tax revenue and federal assistance. The federal government's budgetary constraints are defined by our GDP (Gross Domestic Product: Our nation's production capacity/rate of employment), not taxes. Taxes at the federal level maintain the value of the dollar and takes money out of the economy, which is necessary to control inflation. The US federal government is the exclusive issuer of the USD, hence it can't run out of dollars, any more than a scorekeeper in a football game will run out of points to give. Yes the game has rules, hence the scorekeeper can't just arbitrarily start giving everyone a bunch of points, because that would destroy the game. But as far as the scorekeeper running out of points to give, that will never happen. The US federal government can't give everyone in America a billion dollars, because if everyone became a billionaire overnight, no one would go to work the next day. There wouldn't be enough products to meet consumers' needs, the shelves would be empty and production would come to a screeching halt. Our economy would collapse. So the US federal government budget has its constraints, however, our current budget is small compared to what we could spend.

The so-called national debt is nothing more than a ledger or record of how much money is being saved and invested in treasury bonds. When the government has this "debt" it means there's money in the economy. The US government's red ink is the people's black ink. That's good. Whenever our government has "balanced the books", and gotten rid of its debt, we've suffered a serious recession or all-out depression, within three years of balancing the budget. Don't drink the Kool-Aid about the scary national debt. Politicians and their capitalist handlers have been trying to scare us with this idea of government debt for 200+ years. We have more than enough dollars to fund all social programs. Some social programs are just poorly planned and should be discarded and replaced with something better. Nonetheless, no one in America should be impoverished, unemployed, much less homeless. We have plenty of resources.

 

[Red Front]

Here is more information on what actually is the US federal government's "debt". We often hear conservatives, including the supposed disciples of Jesus, say that they don't want to fund government programs that house the homeless or provide grants to people who want to study a trade, get some job training. What they fail to realize is that, the federal government doesn't need their taxes to fund its programs. That's a myth.

​

 

[Jaxson]

Are you alive before you take your first breath?

No