The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Riggo-toni]

[tshile]

49 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Parent(s) have to make a life or death decision regarding that too. 

 

Yup

 

which is different from making a “do I want a child” decision

[twa]

48 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Parent(s) have to make a life or death decision regarding that too. 

 

What would be the general opinion of people that ended life support when the patient would 'recover' in a few months?

[MartinC]

2 hours ago, MisterPinstripe said:

 I see it as a human life, so as such I cant be okay with a human being killed. 

 

I am not that far away from your view of what is/is not human life. I am personally not in favor of abortion.

 

2 hours ago, MisterPinstripe said:

I personally couldnt ignore what I see and believe is going on and that is loss of life. And until I see, read, or find something that makes me think its not a life I dont see that changing for me.

 

Perfectly reasonable.

 

But why do you feel the need/right to attempt to impose your views/morality on this issue on women who are the ones carrying the fetus? Why should they be denied the choice of what they wish to do (within some set of limits) just because you believe its is wrong? How does this directly impact on you (beyond the moral outrage)?

 

Remember woman are not being forced to have abortions, they are being given a choice.

[Bozo the kKklown]

28 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Yup

 

which is different from making a “do I want a child” decision

I guess, but those kids may have to die too. It’s fine when they are a day from the womb, but not before?

 

If anything, infant mortality is pretty high in America for developed nations.

 

We don’t do nearly enough to make having a child worthwhile to be focusing on the thing in a woman’s womb.

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I guess, but those kids may have to die too. It’s fine when they are a day from the womb, but not before?

 

If anything, infant mortality is pretty high in America for developed nations.

 

Right but context is everything. 

 

Pulling life support from a newborn because they cannot sustain life in a reasonable fashion (ie: medical reason)

 

is a little different than

 

aborting at 7 months because you decided you don’t want a kid. 

 

But the real point was: drawing the line at “can sustain itself outside the womb” seems silly because full term healthy babies cannot sustain themselves outside the womb. 

 

3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

We don’t do nearly enough to make having a child worthwhile to be focusing on the thing in a woman’s womb.

I way disagree with this but you and i are about as opposite as it gets about what is and isn’t worthwhile in this country. 

[LD0506]

[MisterPinstripe]

10 minutes ago, MartinC said:

But why do you feel the need/right to attempt to impose your views/morality on this issue on women who are the ones carrying the fetus? Why should they be denied the choice of what they wish to do (within some set of limits) just because you believe its is wrong? How does this directly impact on you (beyond the moral outrage)?

 

Remember woman are not being forced to have abortions, they are being given a choice.

Well that comes back to me seeing it as a human life for me. Its not about imposing morality/views, its about protecting a human life that trumps all. If you believe its not a life than that argument works fine.

 

In essence what you are saying to me, in how I view this, why should they be denied the choice of killing a person just because I believe its wrong. Because I see it as killing a person, thats kind of a big deal. Again, obviously others do not agree to this which is the disconnect here, but I cant just be okay with it.

 

To try to put it in perspective. The slave owners in the south saw slaves as less than human, they had no rights, they were nothing, just property. The people who wanted to abolish slavery saw it for what it was, an awful thing, a tragedy. Of course the slave owners thought that there wasnt anything wrong with what they were doing and didnt think those trying to abolish slavery had any right to tell them whats wrong or not. Those against slavery didnt have slaves, no direct impact for them, but they saw it was wrong and couldnt just ignore it.

 

I am not trying to equate the two, but trying' to give an example that I think we can all agree on that will give you a better perspective for why I couldn't just ignore it.

 

Im typing this fast so hopefully I was able to get that across clearly.

[LadySkinsFan]

Legally, a fetus isn't a person until a birth certificate is issued. Until then, scientifically it's a parasite existing off a legal female's body.

 

Emotionally, people can think what they want about what a collection of cells is. That doesn't give them the right to legislate female bodily autonomy.

Edited May 20, 2019 by LadySkinsFan

[twa]

13 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

 

Well that and the laws forbidding it and enforcement.

 

Or are you saying thoughts and prayers are only what the pro-choice people offer?

Maybe you are on to something there with those that would not choose it yet support the right to.

[Bozo the kKklown]

43 minutes ago, tshile said:

aborting at 7 months because you decided you don’t want a kid. 

Is that why people are aborting at seven months? There isn't much research on it, but Ive seen stuff range from issues the baby was having during gestation, not being able to access abortions earlier in the pregnancy (cost, logistics, state laws, etc), or life-threatening situations for the women carrying the child.

 

And its a small number of cases. I am not sure how often it is "I have been pregnant for seven months, but I have finally decided I do not want this kid." And even on the chances that is the case, and?

 

43 minutes ago, tshile said:

But the real point was: drawing the line at “can sustain itself outside the womb” seems silly because full term healthy babies cannot sustain themselves outside the womb. 

right, and those babies who can't sustain themselves outside of the womb may have to be put to rest as well. Maybe the family cannot afford the healthcare costs that will nurse that child to good health. Maybe that family can't afford the lifetime of healthcare costs that child will have because of this period. Maybe, its whatever. IDK. My point is that they aren't dissimilar but many people are more concerned with the baby during gestation than after they are out the womb.

 

40 minutes ago, tshile said:

I way disagree with this but you and i are about as opposite as it gets about what is and isn’t worthwhile in this country. 

That's fine, but infant mortality in the US is about 6 deaths per 1,000 births. That puts us in the company with Poland, Serbia, and Gilbratar. That's a fact. 

Edited May 20, 2019 by BenningRoadSkin

[MartinC]

24 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

In essence what you are saying to me, in how I view this, why should they be denied the choice of killing a person just because I believe its wrong. Because I see it as killing a person, thats kind of a big deal. Again, obviously others do not agree to this which is the disconnect here, but I cant just be okay with it.

 

I added bold to some key words above in your response. I get YOU are not OK with it. That is perfectly reasonable - I'm not OK with it either.

 

What you have not answered is why you feel the right/need to impose your views and version of morality? (And it may well be you don't feel the need to impose them - but that's what is happening in these States where these new 8 week laws are being imposed as part of a wider attempt to strike down Roe v Wade).

[twa]

6 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Legally, a fetus isn't a person until a birth certificate is issued. Until then, scientifically it's a parasite existing off a legal female's body.

 

 

Pretty sure you are wrong

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights#Fetal_rights_by_country

 

 

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Is that why people are aborting at seven months? 

 

I dont think so. 

 

But thats how he says he draws the line. So, hence my comment. 

 

9 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

 

right, and those babies who can't sustain themselves outside of the womb may have to be put to rest as well. Maybe the family cannot afford the healthcare costs that will nurse that child to good health. Maybe that family can't afford the lifetime of healthcare costs that child will have because of this period. Maybe, its whatever. IDK. My point is that they aren't dissimilar but many people are more concerned with the baby during gestation than after they are out the womb.

 

Ive never encountered a person that was very much against abortion (even if they had exceptions) that just up and quit caring once the child was born. 

 

I realize thats the rhetoric that you and pro-choice people run around with

 

but I’ve never actually worked with a person that felt that way. I’m sure they exist, just not on the level you and others purport. 

 

Not even close. 

 

Nifty talking point though. You guys definitely get your mileage out of it. 

 

9 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

That's fine, but infant mortality in the US is about 6 deaths per 1,000 births. That puts us in the company with Poland, Serbia, and Gilbratar. That's a fact. 

I’m not disputing that. 

I’m disputing (well, not really, cause we have different viewpoints) your quote

”We don’t do nearly enough to make having a child worthwhile to be focusing on the thing in a woman’s womb.”

i think that’s bull**** but we have very different views on what this country has to offer people so I guess it’s not a surprise. 

[MartinC]

54 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Pretty sure you are wrong

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights#Fetal_rights_by_country

 

 

 

Your link literally say "Not Federally" and then cites one State which is (surprise surprise) Alabama.

 

It's a complex area though and its seems that it is not black and white and that some courts have taken the view that a fetus has some rights - but I would contend it is still true to say as a generalisation that a fetus is not legally regarded as a person until birth. Indeed one of the objectives of those seeking to overturn Roe v Wade is to have a change of law which would change this definition.

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, MartinC said:

What you have not answered is why you feel the right/need to impose your views and version of morality?

 

 

Yes he has. Clearly. You don’t gave to agree with it (I don’t) but he certainly has laid out why he feels that way 

Edited May 20, 2019 by tshile

[twa]

1 minute ago, MartinC said:

 

Your link literally say "Not Federally" and then cites one State which is (surprise surprise) Alabama.

 

It's a complex area though and its seems that it is not black and white and that some courts have taken the view that a fetus as some rights - but I would contend it is still true to say as a generalisation that a fetus is not legally regarded as a person until birth. Indeed one of the objectives of those seeking to overturn Roe v Wade is to have a change of law which would change this definition.

 

Personhood is recognized in many states(the majority), and many other countries

[MartinC]

Just now, tshile said:

 

 

Yes he has. Clearly. You don’t gave to agree with it (I don’t) but he certainly has laid out why he feels that way 

 

He has laid why he feels that way - he has said nothing about why he feels he has the right to have that view imposed on others.

 

If I have missed that could you quote him?

[tshile]

Just now, MartinC said:

 

He has laid why he feels that way - he has said nothing about why he feels he has the right to have that view imposed on others.

 

If I have missed that could you quote him?

 

He gave an analogy to slave owners vs abolishment people back when slavery was legal. An issue people felt strongly enough about to go to war over. 

 

I dont understand why it’s hard to see why if someone views abortion as a murder/killing of a person they would view it as their right/duty/need to stop it (through legal means of course)

 

Why do people fight to outlaw the death penalty? Because they view it as murdering of innocent people (or inhumane to the guilty, which could also apply to abortion)

 

what about carpet bombing? Or terrorist activity? 

 

Or any of the dozens upon upon dozens of issues people feel it is their duty/need/right to interject themselves into the situation because (from their standpoint) innocent people are being murdered?

[MisterPinstripe]

15 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I added bold to some key words above in your response. I get YOU are not OK with it. That is perfectly reasonable - I'm not OK with it either.

 

What you have not answered is why you feel the right/need to impose your views and version of morality? (And it may well be you don't feel the need to impose them - but that's what is happening in these States where these new 8 week laws are being imposed as part of a wider attempt to strike down Roe v Wade).

I have been trying to put it into perspective, but I guess Im not getting it across.

 

Can you answer this question for me? It may make it clearer to you, but at least should make it clearer to me how to get why across:

 

Why did the people working to abolish slavery feel they had the right to impose their view that slavery was wrong on slave owners?

[MartinC]

Just now, twa said:

 

Personhood is recognized in many states(the majority), and many other countries

 

I just checked. Apparently there are 13 States 

 

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/january/only-these-states-say-babies-are-humans-heres-an-update-on-the-fierce-abortion-battles-across-the-us

 

"Thirteen states have laws on the books that state unborn babies are people. These personhood statements are often included under the criminal code to protect mothers and their unborn babies from violent attacks like domestic abuse"

[Bozo the kKklown]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

Ive never encountered a person that was very much against abortion (even if they had exceptions) that just up and quit caring once the child was born. 

 

I realize thats the rhetoric that you and pro-choice people run around with

 

but I’ve never actually worked with a person that felt that way. I’m sure they exist, just not on the level you and others purport. 

 

Not even close. 

 

Nifty talking point though. You guys definitely get your mileage out of it. 

Of course not. They just vote for legislators cut school funding, welfare laws, make it harder to get food stamps and public housing and make healthcare difficult to receive and make life harder for that child. But I am sure if they saw the little child, they would pat them on their belly and give them a dollar.

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

”We don’t do nearly enough to make having a child worthwhile to be focusing on the thing in a woman’s womb.”

i think that’s bull**** but we have very different views on what this country has to offer people so I guess it’s not a surprise. 

Well if we are the most powerful nation in the world yet cannot have the lowest infant mortality rate, then that says we aren't doing enough to make sure that child is successful. 

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Of course not. They just vote for legislators cut school funding, welfare laws, make it harder to get food stamps and public housing and make healthcare difficult to receive and make life harder for that child. But I am sure if they saw the little child, they would pat them on their belly and give them a dollar.

Well if we are the most powerful nation in the world yet cannot have the lowest infant mortality rate, then that says we aren't doing enough to make sure that child is successful. 

 

I think it’s disingenuous to wrap all that up in a little box as a presentation as to why people shouldn’t be against abortion. 

 

I agree with the general notion that we don’t do “enough”.  That’s probably where our agreement ends though 

[Springfield]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

 

I have trouble wrapping my head around this standard because babies born at full term are not capable of sustaining themselves outside the womb. 

 

And plenty go to full term but still need machines to stay alive for a while. 

 

I just don’t understand where the line is drawn here. It feels like anyone could draw it anywhere with this standard. 

 

 

 

Well the same can be said about trying to judge life as a heartbeat, conception, etc.  Its all arbitrary.

[Larry]

5 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

That's just disgusting and disturbing.  Not funny at all.

 

3 hours ago, ClaytoAli said:

Dude, you should just self ban!

 

It would appear that my faith that "this satire is so far over the top that I don't need to label it" is incorrect. At least on this subject. 

 

Which I guess I should understand. It is, after all, a subject which pushes a lot of very powerful buttons on a lot of people. (Including me. Which probably causes me to work harder to try to be ironic, or something.). 

 

No, this is not "not my fault y'all are too stupid to see what's obvious". This is "maybe if one person doesn't get it, then it's just him. But if multiple people don't, then maybe it's me."