Begging the question and how it relates to views on abortion

[This_person]

I used to be solidly pro life. Over time, I'd like to think through gaining wisdom relative to the meaning and intent of the US of A, it has become obvious to me; we can NOT claim to be a free nation while also claiming control over a woman's body. It's up to her, period. End of story. If someone harms her and kills the baby inside her and she considers it murder, so be it. Try them for murder. If she chooses to abort it, that has to be, must be her choice. Period.

Exclusions for rape and incest only make the point more clear; those babies are NO less innocent so, all we're talking about is some nebulous level and/or degree of control.

I am also anti prohibition believing that, in a free country, freedom is only had with it's other side; responsibility.

I'm also becoming isolationist because I do not trust our leaders to act in the national interest.

I'm becoming pro union because the LAST thing I'd trust to act to promote the general welfare is a board and shareholders.

An adult female, in this country, MUST have the freedom and responsibility to make that choice. It is HER body.

I think there is NOTHING more barbaric than abortion. There is NOTHING worse we can do in my view but that's not the point. I don't like what junkies do to themselves nor alcoholics or people that eat way too much and/or exercise way too little. We must be free and there must be responsibility.

IF, and this is THE question, IF we are a free people, a woman must have authority over her body. If we accept that then, in my view, there may well be less because in that traumatic decision making time for a woman considering abortion, at least she will do so KNOWING it is her decision to make. Maybe that means less of them happen. Maybe not. It's still, in a free nation, a question of personal autonomy and freedom of choice. Nothing is more illustrative of our innate desire to control one another, slavery, limited rights for women, smoking, helmets, food laws, size of soda, than to presume it's OUR business.

I think this is what tilted is getting at - is it her body or not. I tend to think of a separate person as not the same person. It's clear from your discussion here that you either think of the separate person as a part of her body, or you don't see it as a separate person until.....when? Is abortion all good and find up to the point the umbilical cord is cut? That would be the logical conclusion of "it's her body". As long as the tether is still there, it's still her body even though it has it's own human (that word is for you, Tilted) DNA, it's own body parts, it's own thoughts, it's own blood type, etc. So, in the middle of birth, snip the spinal cord and we're all good?

If that sounds like something that should not be legal, how is a day earlier different? Two days? A month?

If that sounds like something that should be legal to you, then we simply disagree.

 

[GURPS]

I was thinking about this on the drive in Wed.

if the organs are developed enough to 'harvest' or consider harvesting
.... how can the baby not be far enough along to live, and there fore abortion should be off the table ....


if it is 'ok' for a woman to murder her unborn child :shrug: why stop there
.... why cant I [or my wife] kill of my off spring until their 18th birthday when the are considered an adult or later in life, if you become such screw up, why cannot your parents retroactively remove you from the planet, saving society time and money ...

 

[Tilted]

I used to be solidly pro life. Over time, I'd like to think through gaining wisdom relative to the meaning and intent of the US of A, it has become obvious to me; we can NOT claim to be a free nation while also claiming control over a woman's body. It's up to her, period. End of story. If someone harms her and kills the baby inside her and she considers it murder, so be it. Try them for murder. If she chooses to abort it, that has to be, must be her choice. Period.

Exclusions for rape and incest only make the point more clear; those babies are NO less innocent so, all we're talking about is some nebulous level and/or degree of control.

I am also anti prohibition believing that, in a free country, freedom is only had with it's other side; responsibility.

I'm also becoming isolationist because I do not trust our leaders to act in the national interest.

I'm becoming pro union because the LAST thing I'd trust to act to promote the general welfare is a board and shareholders.

An adult female, in this country, MUST have the freedom and responsibility to make that choice. It is HER body.

I think there is NOTHING more barbaric than abortion. There is NOTHING worse we can do in my view but that's not the point. I don't like what junkies do to themselves nor alcoholics or people that eat way too much and/or exercise way too little. We must be free and there must be responsibility.

IF, and this is THE question, IF we are a free people, a woman must have authority over her body. If we accept that then, in my view, there may well be less because in that traumatic decision making time for a woman considering abortion, at least she will do so KNOWING it is her decision to make. Maybe that means less of them happen. Maybe not. It's still, in a free nation, a question of personal autonomy and freedom of choice. Nothing is more illustrative of our innate desire to control one another, slavery, limited rights for women, smoking, helmets, food laws, size of soda, than to presume it's OUR business.

But what if it's not just her body, what if it's also - or instead - a separate human life? Should she have the right to kill it? Of course she should have great autonomy when it comes to her body, but does respecting that autonomy take precedence over protecting the life of another human being? A human being she chose to create, which had no say in the matter, and which she might be killing in exercising autonomy over her own body?

 

[Larry Gude]

But what if it's not just her body, what if it's also - or instead - a separate human life? Should she have the right to kill it? Of course she should have great autonomy when it comes to her body, but does respecting that autonomy take precedence over protecting the life of another human being? A human being she chose to create, which had no say in the matter, and which she might be killing in exercising autonomy over her own body?

It is a separate human life. In her body. HER body.

You see a public right to control that and you go ahead and write and enforce the rules and add in helmets and what we ingest and rules controlling our behavior and so on and so forth. But, let's just stop calling ourselves free.

On what grounds do you say 'she CHOSE to create it' and then see authority to take that power away from her? She gives up her rights at, what, conception? 1st trimester? 2nd? Birth? On those grounds can't we simply make her have babies to begin with?

I think you'd said before our government was never designed to be neat and clean. This freedom stuff is messy.

 

[vraiblonde]

How do you know which ones those will be? How do we pre-judge the quality of life of the child (never mind the question of what represents a "worthy" quality of life)?

When you look at violent/habitual criminals' family histories, there are distinct patterns that emerge. Obviously there are exceptions on both sides of it, but as a general rule you can figure that kids who grew up in lawless violent homes will be lawless and violent themselves. And a woman who would abort her unwanted child - let's just get real - has already shown a predisposition toward neglect. At the very least she is sexually negligent, and by being amenable to scraping that child out of her womb and throwing it in the garbage...well... :shrug:

So that's where we're at: is the possibility of one solid citizen worth the probability of thousands of worthless predatory POS?

I say no.

 

[vraiblonde]

I want to be completely clear that I AM NOT talking about children born with a disability, or children of rape/incest. I am strictly talking about children born to ####ty people in ####ty circumstances, who will most likely raise their kids to be a ####ty people themselves.

 

[This_person]

It is a separate human life. In her body. HER body.

You see a public right to control that and you go ahead and write and enforce the rules and add in helmets and what we ingest and rules controlling our behavior and so on and so forth. But, let's just stop calling ourselves free.

On what grounds do you say 'she CHOSE to create it' and then see authority to take that power away from her? She gives up her rights at, what, conception? 1st trimester? 2nd? Birth? On those grounds can't we simply make her have babies to begin with?

I think you'd said before our government was never designed to be neat and clean. This freedom stuff is messy.

Are you literally comparing helmet laws (with which I disagree, for the same reason as you) to murder? You can't be serious, Larry.

You accept that it is a separate life. I ask you again, would you be find with snipping the spinal chord of a baby as it's being born, but still inside the mother?

And, please, you have to see the huge difference between a woman having consensual sex and forcing someone to have babies?

You ask where she gave up her rights, and I say when the child is scientifically identifiable as a separate life. Where do you see her right to kill the child to end?

 

[This_person]

When you look at violent/habitual criminals' family histories, there are distinct patterns that emerge. Obviously there are exceptions on both sides of it, but as a general rule you can figure that kids who grew up in lawless violent homes will be lawless and violent themselves. And a woman who would abort her unwanted child - let's just get real - has already shown a predisposition toward neglect. At the very least she is sexually negligent, and by being amenable to scraping that child out of her womb and throwing it in the garbage...well... :shrug:

So that's where we're at: is the possibility of one solid citizen worth the probability of thousands of worthless predatory POS?

I say no.

Your final question is telling....I am guessing that you would therefore be against the "is one innocent man in jail better than ten guilty men on the street" concept of our judicial system granting rights to those with reasonable doubt?

Again, I respect your honesty, and your position. I simply disagree. I am not prepared to judge people pre-birth as to the quality of their life including whether or not they'll be a burden on society.

 

[Tilted]

It is a separate human life. In her body. HER body.

You see a public right to control that and you go ahead and write and enforce the rules and add in helmets and what we ingest and rules controlling our behavior and so on and so forth. But, let's just stop calling ourselves free.

On what grounds do you say 'she CHOSE to create it' and then see authority to take that power away from her? She gives up her rights at, what, conception? 1st trimester? 2nd? Birth? On those grounds can't we simply make her have babies to begin with?

I think you'd said before our government was never designed to be neat and clean. This freedom stuff is messy.

Freedom is indeed messy. But societies form for some reason, governments are instituted for some reason - meaning, we agree to sacrifice some amount of natural freedom in return for something. I think the basic reasons are fairly self-evident, but I'm glad to discuss what I think they are if you want.

That said, I can't think of any conception of society that doesn't include, as a starting point, the purpose of preventing members of society from killing each other. No matter how minimalistic our views with regard to the role of society are, that has to be in there or else we just don't believe in society at all. Agreeing not to kill each other is, it seems to me, the foundational covenant that represents the formation of society.

So, yeah, freedom is messy - but the level of messiness represented by not prohibiting murder is a bridge too far I think. It's only consistent with complete freedom, meaning the absence of government and not existing as a society but rather as completely autonomous living beings.

 

[This_person]

I want to be completely clear that I AM NOT talking about children born with a disability, or children of rape/incest. I am strictly talking about children born to ####ty people in ####ty circumstances, who will most likely raise their kids to be a ####ty people themselves.

Anyone adding things like this into your thoughts would be intellectually dishonest. No worries of that from the people posting so far.

 

[SamSpade]

Lately I've been amazed at the (supposed) position of Planned Parenthood that the baby is not a life until it leaves the hospital.

THIS is supposed to be *science*? Conservatives are accused of being "anti-science" and we get THIS crap?

But this would be the only way you could justify so many of the botched abortions where the baby is still clearly alive after removal.

 

[digitallest]

I also take issue with the "it is not a life until it leaves the hospital" bs. Some logic in there, planned parenthood? So, if a lunatic shoots all the pre-life exo-fetuses in the hospital nursery, the worst he will be charged with is a property crime? Oooh, that is right, discharging a weapon in a gun free zone!
That is probably a bigger crime than infanticide in a society that views babies as equal to, or less than a parasitic blob.


what if the killer of non living, not people in the hospital used a less controversial weapon, something soft, like a pillow, you suppose anyone would care? Or would everyone be like, "hahaha, you got me, no harm no foul, should have left the hospital immediately."

Maybe hospitals can install a bin, at all the exits, for parents who change their minds about having an actual baby, they can just toss the post birth fetus in the parts bin.

That slogan is gross. Planned parenthood, disgusting. Sick sick sick. it is super easy to manipulate people, offer justifications for taking the easy way out, because consequences are too hard for modern humans. People should not be expected to bear difficulties. Especially not for the benefit of a baby. Sex is supposed to be fun! Life is supposed to be easy! And FAIR. To me. F*ck everybody else

 

[Bobwhite]

It's an ugly old world and it took me awhile to come to grips with my opinion and become comfortable with it. I am against abortion on a personal level - both of my grandchildren were unplanned and I was openly thrilled that abortion wasn't on the table with either of them. Nor was it on the table when I was an unmarried teenage pregnant person. It's just not what we do in my family or part of our value system.

But I also knew that neither I nor either of my kids was going to produce a Future Felon and drain on society. My cousin, on the other hand, has produced two POS that the world would be better off without; now they are reproducing and it's not looking good for any of those children. So... :shrug:

At some point the good of society has to come into play. THAT is why I'm pro-abortion. There are simply some people that the world would be better off without, and we can definitely do without them reproducing exponentially.

Harsh, but true.

I'd be interested in knowing how you knew that you and your children would not produce future felons. I've known not-so-nice parents who had perfectly lovely children and vice versa. I've also known people who were good parents with several children, some were good some were bad. There's no way to know how your child will turn out.


I suppose it's possible, but I've never heard of one person having two beating hearts. Two separate hearts, two separate people.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Lots of mental gymnastics here.

Of course, cells that can divide is the very definition of life. I reject the notion that it takes x weeks or days or whatever to become life, when it can live on its own outside of the mother. Therefore, a baby is life from the moment of conception by any reasonable definition of life, if one approaches this logically and scientifically.

I think that's the wrong question, however. To me the question is, if we are to live in a country ruled by the Constitution (of course I have problems with that and with government in general, but this is our system and I will stick with it for now) then to whom should the decision (to abort) be up to: the individual or the voting masses?

I know my answer. If your answer is the voting masses, you get yourself into a whole lot of ideological log jams -- like how can you have any reasonable platform from which to object to a whole host of laws.

Abortion is infanticide. Of this there is no doubt. However, a free society isn't easy and this is on the of the more difficult things we are going to have to swallow if we purport to believe in this little experiment of ours. I think the alternative is far, far worse.

I believe it was Bill Clinton who said that abortion should be legal and rare. I agree with him on that.

 

[Gilligan]

I believe it was Bill Clinton who said that abortion should be legal and rare. I agree with him on that.

But that is the conundrum..Abortion is legal and yet quite routine. It is, simply and inarguably, a form of birth control practiced by millions. That said...I'm not one of those pro-life advocates..I just wish the issue didn't suck so much oxygen from the public debates that really affect our survival as a nation.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

I just wish the issue didn't suck so much oxygen from the public debates that really affect our survival as a nation.

Aye .. wedge issue worth lots of money and political capital for both parties.

 

[acommondisaster]

It's an ugly old world and it took me awhile to come to grips with my opinion and become comfortable with it. I am against abortion on a personal level - both of my grandchildren were unplanned and I was openly thrilled that abortion wasn't on the table with either of them. Nor was it on the table when I was an unmarried teenage pregnant person. It's just not what we do in my family or part of our value system.

But I also knew that neither I nor either of my kids was going to produce a Future Felon and drain on society. My cousin, on the other hand, has produced two POS that the world would be better off without; now they are reproducing and it's not looking good for any of those children. So... :shrug:

At some point the good of society has to come into play. THAT is why I'm pro-abortion. There are simply some people that the world would be better off without, and we can definitely do without them reproducing exponentially.

Harsh, but true.

I'm not quite sure what your cousin's parental abilities and abortion have to do with one another. Are advocating that pregnant women take a parenting test and if they fail they get an abortion?

How long into the POS stage do you feel it is still okay to remove them from this world? Sounds like the term "late term abortion" may have a new Vrai definition.

 

[Larry Gude]

Are you literally comparing helmet laws ?

No. I am comparing the desire to use law to control on anothers behavior. Hell, seeings how you're making them equivalent, which I presumed they self evidently would NOT be, if I think I have the power to make you wear a helmet, you're damn skippy I'm gonna think I can make you carry to term.

So, to spell that last one out, IF we think we should be able to control the trivial, helmet laws, smoking, food, drink, etc, OF COURSE something like life and death would fall under that heading of private and personal things we consider our public business.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not quite sure what your cousin's parental abilities and abortion have to do with one another. Are advocating that pregnant women take a parenting test and if they fail they get an abortion?

How long into the POS stage do you feel it is still okay to remove them from this world? Sounds like the term "late term abortion" may have a new Vrai definition.

She blew up her own argument; the ####ty people are NOT having the abortions.

 

[Larry Gude]

But that is the conundrum..Abortion is legal and yet quite routine. It is, simply and inarguably, a form of birth control practiced by millions. That said...I'm not one of those pro-life advocates..I just wish the issue didn't suck so much oxygen from the public debates that really affect our survival as a nation.

Yeah, me too! Hey, you wanna donate to my Safe Cecil fund?