|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 23 2020 22:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 21:57 Belisarius wrote:This is probably the only issue that comes up on TL where you will find me agreeing with Danglars, and certainly with Nettles. I don't generally see it as one that's productive to discuss, but it keeps coming up lately, so, ok. I'll take Dave's framing: On September 23 2020 19:35 iamthedave wrote:
You can't just remove the rights of women from discussions about pregnancy. By definition you are discussing putting the rights of the baby above the rights of the woman. That's right, that is the central discussion. Obviously, however, one of the rights being discussed is the right to continue living, which we as a society value very highly. If the right of person #1 to remain living is weighed against the right of person #2 to do something else, we almost always agree that person #1 should not die if there is any alternative. + Show Spoiler +I realise that I am making this statement in the shadow of BLM, so I will reiterate that I believe black people should not die when interacting with cops, and if some republican somewhere believes otherwise, his view does not change the fact that this is a core value society is built on. Therefore, the question is whether the child is afforded that right. This is also obvious, but I think it's very important to stop and realise that is not a technical or medical question; it's an unanswerable moral question. This is why the issue is so vexed. If the child is considered human, his/her human right to remain alive trumps almost anything else. If the fetus is not, then the whole thing becomes an issue of women's health, which almost nobody here has any business holding an opinion on. Both positions flow completely from their premise, and the premise is unprovable one way or the other. To me, this is almost intractable, but its intractability is not helped by each side calling the other baby-murderers or misogynists, and that seems to happen a lot both elsewhere and around here. Drone's position seems very reasonable to me and is a good place to start, even if I don't entirely agree. Comparisons to slavery are not. You put an important qualifier in there: "If there is any alternative". It's a generally accepted premise that you can't force an individual to take an action, much less sacrifice their well-being, to support another's life if the giving party doesn't consent.. + Show Spoiler +Pregnancy places significant physical, emotional/social, and economic hardship on a woman. One of the primary arguments of the pro-choice view is that women don't consent to becoming pregnant just because they are physically capable of it. Therefore, forcing a woman to carry to term is a non-consensual coercion of a woman into sustaining another life to her own detriment for a prolonged period of time.
If, as you said, there was a viable alternative (fetuses could be removed and cared for/carried to term without significant burden to the woman) then this wouldn't be a discussion; the fetus could have that right and a woman would be on her way.
The problem is that this isn't a viable alternative. The pro-life position necessarily forces a woman to undergo prolonged hardships and suffering to support another life without her consent.
Is it?
If the baby is 6 weeks old and the parents refuse to care for it, so it dies, do we not hold them accountable?
|
On September 23 2020 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 21:47 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 21:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:A fetus is not the same during every period of pregnancy and I think it makes sense to have different rules and regulations for different stages of pregnancy. I don't really know how I feel about 'laws against violence against the fetus'. To me, it mostly just makes sense from a perspective where a person deliberately kills it, and I don't think that's really what the law targets. That again would only be a law that really made sense if abortion isn't legal (nobody is gonna go for a 'kill your own fetus through punching yourself' or whatever if they can choose a safe legal inexpensive and available method). I don't want a person who kills a pregnant woman who had no idea she was pregnant (say it's in the first trimester) to be convicted of double murder, and I don't want a person who shoves a pregnant lady where it results in a miscarriage to be convicted of murder. But I also think kicking a visibly pregnant woman in the stomach is much worse than kicking a random woman in the stomach (not a fan of that either!). Wegandi, you do realize that most countries, and most 'pro-abortion' people actually want to have some restrictions on abortions? Like I want abortions to be freely available to anyone who wants one during the early stages, but I'm not really comfortable with people randomly deciding to end it 7 months into pregnancy. (Just to be clear - this also doesn't actually happen in any significant number of cases - people who get third trimester abortions are extremely unlikely to make that decision frivolously.) Franky the 'pro-abortion folks obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all' is about as big of a mischaracterization as 'the anti-abortion folks want 12 year olds who get pregnant after being raped by their dad to give birth to the baby' would have been if it came from a leftist, tbh (I assume neither you nor danglars would argue in favor of that, do correct me if I am wrong though). Try to drop these hyperbolic generalizations. Personally I think a 1 week old fetus has no rights and I don't think it resembles anything of a person/human, but I think a 34 week old fetus looks quite a lot like a baby and that you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion that late unless there's the whole life or serious harm of the mother / some very bad disease found in the child. (Edit: I would be inclined to think that this is a decision women can take for themselves though, and that it's not something that really needs to be controlled by some governing organ or whatever. I've known many pregnant women, some who ended up having abortions - but every woman who stayed pregnant 3 months into the pregnancy really wanted to have a kid, and I can't imagine any of them just randomly going 'oh this was a bad idea anyway, abort this baby' 5+ months into the pregnancy'. ) Figuring out exactly where to draw the line is up for debate, I don't have a real answer to that - but I basically have no issues with first trimester abortions and think third trimester abortions should be prohibited unless there's good reason X.  I'm not sure it's as big of a mischaracterization as your analogy is (there are far more people who want no limit on abortions than there are who would hold that other position you mentioned), but nonetheless at least someone can articulate their position well rather than screaming that the other side just wants to control women with cries of misogyny. I would love for you to provide any sort of evidence that there are more people who want no limit on abortions at all. Where are all these people in favor of late term abortions?
It's not "a lot more" and it's a definite minority, but more people are in favor than against in all cases.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
|
On September 23 2020 21:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 20:18 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 19:35 iamthedave wrote:On September 23 2020 08:08 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 07:53 iamthedave wrote:
One of the Republican tentpole objectives has been overturning Roe v Wade. Can't get much more oppressive than 'we want to be able to control what women do with their bodies'. That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). If your quote is what you believe you're not discussing or having a dialogue, but it's just 2 people talking past each other. (For the record I'm somewhere on the Walter Block evictionism scale myself...anywho) As far as I am aware over-turning Roe v Wade will allow the states that believe in the prior statement to enact limitations/laws protecting said unborn life. It doesn't require states to make abortion illegal. It will have no affect on liberal/Democrat run states. (Prior to Roe v Wade abortion in some form or fashion was legal in 20 states, and illegal in 30) To me it seems like it's more apt to say that Roe v Wade was forcing states to do things they didn't want rather than vice versa (e.g. states could at any time prior to Roe v Wade make abortion legal if they wanted and many did). It very definitely is about women and their body. That's an inextricable part of it, and trying to reframe the argument to 'oh so you're pro baby murder are you' is about trying to hide that. Never mind that abortions are already illegal after a certain point and extremely uncommon past another. You can't just remove the rights of women from discussions about pregnancy. By definition you are discussing putting the rights of the baby above the rights of the woman. Also: The actual Vice President of the actual USA government has said that we'll see abortion banned in the USA in his lifetime. Which is probably a bit ambitious but it's a pretty solid indication of where things are going. If states want to make abortions illegal they should be prevented from doing so. End of. Same as if one of the states wants to remove all voting rights from black people or reinstitute slavery. Of course abortion has to do with a woman's body, but we're talking about the reason why a group of people (anti-abortion folks) want to restrict it and that is not about "control of woman's body". That's not why they're anti-abortion and silly bumper sticker rhetoric gets no one anywhere. This isn't a simple issue like determining property rights in a contract dispute, or what have you, it's weighing the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the woman. You don't believe the unborn worthy of such rights, but other people disagree and it's not an unreasonable position to hold contrary to your belief. It's better to let local polity's decide this issue, and if someone wants an abortion they can go to where it is legal (and before you say well that's an inconvenience, ya, and so are all the regulations and laws re: gun rights). This is nothing like slavery jfc. You're so far up your own ass you can't see the grand canyon size difference. Just putting your privilege on full blast here, I see. Pretty sure "these restrictions are too onerous" is one of the fundamental arguments that 2A advocates make to try to stop gun restriction laws. Tying back to our last discussion of respecting legitimacy, precedent, etc., it's a pretty well-established precedent by most courts that having a right in name only isn't actually freedom at all; overly onerous burdens on one's right to do something is functionally the same as not having that right at all. As to reasoning, progressives are skeptical of conservatives' reason for denying abortion rights because they don't seem to give a damn about actually making lives any better. A true "pro-life" stance that really cared about saving and improving lives would advocate for improved sexual education and access to contraceptives (the only thing proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions, and something that conservatives vehemently oppose), improved social programs for mothers that are struggling economically (also strongly opposed by conservatives), improved access to perinatal healthcare and child healthcare (also opposed by conservatives), improved educational systems (also opposed by conservatives), and this list could go on. That stance also wouldn't advocate for the death penalty or for vigilante justice against perceived criminals (both incredibly common by conservatives). It's pretty dubious to say that the argument is "pro-life" when the only outcome of conservatives' actions will be to oppress women and make life harder for women and these potential children throughout their lives. Also, yes, this is actually comparable to slavery in some ways. You're advocating for forcing women to perform prolonged, relatively dangerous acts with their bodies that have potentially long-term and/or permanent physical, social, and economic consequences without their consent. Let's also not forget that abortion is a necessary medical procedure in many cases and, despite falsely claiming the opposite, conservatives want an outright, no-exceptions ban to the practice if they can get away with it, and you side-stepped and ignored this when called out on it.
You keep addressing me like I'm a conservative lol. It's funny. Anyways, my point of bringing up guns was that progressives see nothing wrong with the current iteration of laws (except that they're too lax) concerning this right, but any tiny restriction on abortion rights then there are histrionics and its not really a right if there are restrictions, etc. It was to point out the double-standard.
Moving on, your 2nd paragraph still doesn't understand that the anti-abortion folks are so because they believe the unborn are alive and have rights. Everything after that fact is irrelevant. Are you going to also accuse folks of not really being pro-life if they're also not in favor of Government provided housing, food, water, etc.? It's a bad-faith argument.
There are a lot of people who are anti-abortion who want OTC access to contraceptives, sex-education, prefer safe sex, etc. You're using a small radical minority of folks to paint the whole brush. You must not know very many conservatives IRL or have very many discussions. (Where I am currently living that's mostly my political run-ins, and let's just say they're not exactly enthused with my views on Trump lol)
It's like progressives have difficulty separating people being against Government providing a thing and being against a thing itself. I don't want (in an ideal world) Government providing law and security, but I'm not against the provision of law and security itself. (You get my point here, why your second paragraph is codswallop?)
|
On September 23 2020 22:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:On September 23 2020 21:47 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 21:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:A fetus is not the same during every period of pregnancy and I think it makes sense to have different rules and regulations for different stages of pregnancy. I don't really know how I feel about 'laws against violence against the fetus'. To me, it mostly just makes sense from a perspective where a person deliberately kills it, and I don't think that's really what the law targets. That again would only be a law that really made sense if abortion isn't legal (nobody is gonna go for a 'kill your own fetus through punching yourself' or whatever if they can choose a safe legal inexpensive and available method). I don't want a person who kills a pregnant woman who had no idea she was pregnant (say it's in the first trimester) to be convicted of double murder, and I don't want a person who shoves a pregnant lady where it results in a miscarriage to be convicted of murder. But I also think kicking a visibly pregnant woman in the stomach is much worse than kicking a random woman in the stomach (not a fan of that either!). Wegandi, you do realize that most countries, and most 'pro-abortion' people actually want to have some restrictions on abortions? Like I want abortions to be freely available to anyone who wants one during the early stages, but I'm not really comfortable with people randomly deciding to end it 7 months into pregnancy. (Just to be clear - this also doesn't actually happen in any significant number of cases - people who get third trimester abortions are extremely unlikely to make that decision frivolously.) Franky the 'pro-abortion folks obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all' is about as big of a mischaracterization as 'the anti-abortion folks want 12 year olds who get pregnant after being raped by their dad to give birth to the baby' would have been if it came from a leftist, tbh (I assume neither you nor danglars would argue in favor of that, do correct me if I am wrong though). Try to drop these hyperbolic generalizations. Personally I think a 1 week old fetus has no rights and I don't think it resembles anything of a person/human, but I think a 34 week old fetus looks quite a lot like a baby and that you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion that late unless there's the whole life or serious harm of the mother / some very bad disease found in the child. (Edit: I would be inclined to think that this is a decision women can take for themselves though, and that it's not something that really needs to be controlled by some governing organ or whatever. I've known many pregnant women, some who ended up having abortions - but every woman who stayed pregnant 3 months into the pregnancy really wanted to have a kid, and I can't imagine any of them just randomly going 'oh this was a bad idea anyway, abort this baby' 5+ months into the pregnancy'. ) Figuring out exactly where to draw the line is up for debate, I don't have a real answer to that - but I basically have no issues with first trimester abortions and think third trimester abortions should be prohibited unless there's good reason X. I'm not sure it's as big of a mischaracterization as your analogy is (there are far more people who want no limit on abortions than there are who would hold that other position you mentioned), but nonetheless at least someone can articulate their position well rather than screaming that the other side just wants to control women with cries of misogyny. I would love for you to provide any sort of evidence that there are more people who want no limit on abortions at all. Where are all these people in favor of late term abortions? It's not "a lot more" and it's a definite minority, but more people are in favor than against in all cases. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Is it?
If the baby is 6 weeks old and the parents refuse to care for it, so it dies, do we not hold them accountable?
Your analogy doesn't hold.
Not taking care of a child in this manner is negligence concerning a pre-existing legal obligation when there are feasible alternatives, whereas the abortion issue is about physically co-opting someone's bodily functions and not giving them a feasible alternative. People can literally make a phone call or two and give a child away to the state (or a private organization) that will take care of a child in the short-term until they are put into an adoption/foster care system. The ability to have an abortion is comparable to the ability to give the child away. There is no comparison to not taking care of the child because pregnancy forces a woman's body to support a fetus regardless of her consent.
Also, I'll reiterate, yes, it is. You can't legally force people to donate plasma or organs even if they are already dead to support another person's life.
I think that this is really important to highlight one more time, just to bring the point home: It is illegal to take viable organs from a dead person without their (or their next of kin's) prior consent to sustain another person's life, no exceptions.
You also can't force people to take particular actions (e.g. feed people, donate money, do CPR) to support another person's life unless they are a healthcare provider (i.e. went through the long process of consenting to becoming a professional whose job it is to keep people alive).
It's actually pretty well established that individuals generally don't have a duty to intervene to save other people as long as they don't have prior responsibility for that individual, and this prior responsibility requires consent first, something that a pregnant woman doesn't necessarily give.
You keep addressing me like I'm a conservative lol. It's funny. Anyways, my point of bringing up guns was that progressives see nothing wrong with the current iteration of laws (except that they're too lax) concerning this right, but any tiny restriction on abortion rights then there are histrionics and its not really a right if there are restrictions, etc. It was to point out the double-standard.
Moving on, your 2nd paragraph still doesn't understand that the anti-abortion folks are so because they believe the unborn are alive and have rights. Everything after that fact is irrelevant. Are you going to also accuse folks of not really being pro-life if they're also not in favor of Government provided housing, food, water, etc.? It's a bad-faith argument.
Your analogy to 2A issues is poor because conservatives see "too onerous" as waiting a couple days, whereas "too onerous" for women (as would be enforced by conservatives) is "no access, no exceptions".
I address you as if you're conservative because you consistently support conservatives, even if you don't like the label.
I entirely understand that conservatives believe that the unborn have rights. I address that in the other posts that I'm putting up here. The problem is that conservatives want to legislate from a purely ethical framework and don't take results or real-world consequences into account. If conservatives were able to enact their legislation concerning abortion as they want to, it would simply make the situation worse, and this is one of the largest and most valid criticisms of their stance on abortion.
There are a lot of people who are anti-abortion who want OTC access to contraceptives, sex-education, prefer safe sex, etc. You're using a small radical minority of folks to paint the whole brush. You must not know very many conservatives IRL or have very many discussions. (Where I am currently living that's mostly my political run-ins, and let's just say they're not exactly enthused with my views on Trump lol)
You actually try to take a reasonable conservative minority and generalize it to everyone. Unfortunately for you, the conservative political movement in this country isn't reasonable.
Even if, for the sake of argument, I take it at face value that most conservatives want OTC access to contraceptives, sex-ed, safe sex practices, etc. (I'm pretty damn sure this is false but we'll run with it for the sake of discussion), this is completely irrelevant because they support a political party and anti-abortion interest groups that absolutely 100% do not work towards these goals at all. The Republican party and all anti-abortion groups put zero effort into any of the aforementioned issues and, in most cases, actively work against them; the most fervent conservative base in the country is evangelical conservatives and they actively oppose sex-ed and everything else mentioned.
Also, I am both in the military and work in EMS. I know a lot of conservatives (both of these populations are disproportionately conservative) and have to listen to them talking about politics way more than I choose to.
It's like progressives have difficulty separating people being against Government providing a thing and being against a thing itself. I don't want (in an ideal world) Government providing law and security, but I'm not against the provision of law and security itself. (You get my point here, why your second paragraph is codswallop?)
As mentioned above, it doesn't matter if you say that you are for access to these things "just not through the government" when the party and policies that you support do absolutely nothing to improve access or otherwise improve the situation. For decades, conservatives have actively fought to remove sex education from public schools, make it more difficult to obtain contraceptives (often based on a complete lack of understanding of science), and have fought for several other policy decisions that would both directly and indirectly contribute to more abortions being performed.
This is why conservatives can't be taken seriously when they say that they are doing this "for the rights of the fetus". Their actions only serve to 1) make themselves feel better and 2) oppress women without actually reducing the incidence of abortion or improving the lives of either the women or the potential children involved.
|
On September 23 2020 21:40 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 20:59 Gahlo wrote:On September 23 2020 20:22 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 13:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 23 2020 08:08 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 07:53 iamthedave wrote:
One of the Republican tentpole objectives has been overturning Roe v Wade. Can't get much more oppressive than 'we want to be able to control what women do with their bodies'. That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). Of course, the laws are already on the books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_ActThe Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1] Personally I'm hoping he nominates Lagoa.Politically a good move since she's Hispanic from Florida.I'm sure they will meet when Trump travels to Miami, her home city, on Friday.Keep Amy Barrett for his second term she can replace Thomas when he retires. I wonder what the pro-abortion folks think of this. I mean they obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all, nor do they seem to believe a fetus to be resembling anything of a person/human. Feel free to chime in folks. Do you think these laws should be axed? Pro-choice. The prospective mother's rights supersede the rights of the unborn. End of story. Even if the whole situation was imposed on the baby by the actions of its parents? Why?
Should minors be allowed full autonomy of the choices in their life regardless of how it affects their parents' well being?
|
On September 23 2020 22:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:On September 23 2020 21:47 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 21:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:A fetus is not the same during every period of pregnancy and I think it makes sense to have different rules and regulations for different stages of pregnancy. I don't really know how I feel about 'laws against violence against the fetus'. To me, it mostly just makes sense from a perspective where a person deliberately kills it, and I don't think that's really what the law targets. That again would only be a law that really made sense if abortion isn't legal (nobody is gonna go for a 'kill your own fetus through punching yourself' or whatever if they can choose a safe legal inexpensive and available method). I don't want a person who kills a pregnant woman who had no idea she was pregnant (say it's in the first trimester) to be convicted of double murder, and I don't want a person who shoves a pregnant lady where it results in a miscarriage to be convicted of murder. But I also think kicking a visibly pregnant woman in the stomach is much worse than kicking a random woman in the stomach (not a fan of that either!). Wegandi, you do realize that most countries, and most 'pro-abortion' people actually want to have some restrictions on abortions? Like I want abortions to be freely available to anyone who wants one during the early stages, but I'm not really comfortable with people randomly deciding to end it 7 months into pregnancy. (Just to be clear - this also doesn't actually happen in any significant number of cases - people who get third trimester abortions are extremely unlikely to make that decision frivolously.) Franky the 'pro-abortion folks obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all' is about as big of a mischaracterization as 'the anti-abortion folks want 12 year olds who get pregnant after being raped by their dad to give birth to the baby' would have been if it came from a leftist, tbh (I assume neither you nor danglars would argue in favor of that, do correct me if I am wrong though). Try to drop these hyperbolic generalizations. Personally I think a 1 week old fetus has no rights and I don't think it resembles anything of a person/human, but I think a 34 week old fetus looks quite a lot like a baby and that you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion that late unless there's the whole life or serious harm of the mother / some very bad disease found in the child. (Edit: I would be inclined to think that this is a decision women can take for themselves though, and that it's not something that really needs to be controlled by some governing organ or whatever. I've known many pregnant women, some who ended up having abortions - but every woman who stayed pregnant 3 months into the pregnancy really wanted to have a kid, and I can't imagine any of them just randomly going 'oh this was a bad idea anyway, abort this baby' 5+ months into the pregnancy'. ) Figuring out exactly where to draw the line is up for debate, I don't have a real answer to that - but I basically have no issues with first trimester abortions and think third trimester abortions should be prohibited unless there's good reason X. I'm not sure it's as big of a mischaracterization as your analogy is (there are far more people who want no limit on abortions than there are who would hold that other position you mentioned), but nonetheless at least someone can articulate their position well rather than screaming that the other side just wants to control women with cries of misogyny. I would love for you to provide any sort of evidence that there are more people who want no limit on abortions at all. Where are all these people in favor of late term abortions? It's not "a lot more" and it's a definite minority, but more people are in favor than against in all cases. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx It does point to that yes, but if you look further down you see it split out by trimester and first trimester abortions are at 60% legal, 34% illegal while third trimester are at 13% legal and 81% illegal.
Even abortions because of rape/incest is at 21% think it should be illegal, which is more then the percentage that think third trimester abortions should be legal (13%).
So I think it the answers given heavily depend on the type of question and information given. Legal under any circumstance goes from 29% on the generic questions to 13% when asked specifically about third trimester.
|
On September 23 2020 22:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 22:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:On September 23 2020 21:47 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 21:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:A fetus is not the same during every period of pregnancy and I think it makes sense to have different rules and regulations for different stages of pregnancy. I don't really know how I feel about 'laws against violence against the fetus'. To me, it mostly just makes sense from a perspective where a person deliberately kills it, and I don't think that's really what the law targets. That again would only be a law that really made sense if abortion isn't legal (nobody is gonna go for a 'kill your own fetus through punching yourself' or whatever if they can choose a safe legal inexpensive and available method). I don't want a person who kills a pregnant woman who had no idea she was pregnant (say it's in the first trimester) to be convicted of double murder, and I don't want a person who shoves a pregnant lady where it results in a miscarriage to be convicted of murder. But I also think kicking a visibly pregnant woman in the stomach is much worse than kicking a random woman in the stomach (not a fan of that either!). Wegandi, you do realize that most countries, and most 'pro-abortion' people actually want to have some restrictions on abortions? Like I want abortions to be freely available to anyone who wants one during the early stages, but I'm not really comfortable with people randomly deciding to end it 7 months into pregnancy. (Just to be clear - this also doesn't actually happen in any significant number of cases - people who get third trimester abortions are extremely unlikely to make that decision frivolously.) Franky the 'pro-abortion folks obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all' is about as big of a mischaracterization as 'the anti-abortion folks want 12 year olds who get pregnant after being raped by their dad to give birth to the baby' would have been if it came from a leftist, tbh (I assume neither you nor danglars would argue in favor of that, do correct me if I am wrong though). Try to drop these hyperbolic generalizations. Personally I think a 1 week old fetus has no rights and I don't think it resembles anything of a person/human, but I think a 34 week old fetus looks quite a lot like a baby and that you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion that late unless there's the whole life or serious harm of the mother / some very bad disease found in the child. (Edit: I would be inclined to think that this is a decision women can take for themselves though, and that it's not something that really needs to be controlled by some governing organ or whatever. I've known many pregnant women, some who ended up having abortions - but every woman who stayed pregnant 3 months into the pregnancy really wanted to have a kid, and I can't imagine any of them just randomly going 'oh this was a bad idea anyway, abort this baby' 5+ months into the pregnancy'. ) Figuring out exactly where to draw the line is up for debate, I don't have a real answer to that - but I basically have no issues with first trimester abortions and think third trimester abortions should be prohibited unless there's good reason X. I'm not sure it's as big of a mischaracterization as your analogy is (there are far more people who want no limit on abortions than there are who would hold that other position you mentioned), but nonetheless at least someone can articulate their position well rather than screaming that the other side just wants to control women with cries of misogyny. I would love for you to provide any sort of evidence that there are more people who want no limit on abortions at all. Where are all these people in favor of late term abortions? It's not "a lot more" and it's a definite minority, but more people are in favor than against in all cases. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx It does point to that yes, but if you look further down you see it split out by trimester and first trimester abortions are at 60% legal, 34% illegal while third trimester are at 13% legal and 81% illegal. Even abortions because of rape/incest is at 21% think it should be illegal, which is more then the percentage that think third trimester abortions should be legal (13%). So I think it the answers given heavily depend on the type of question and information given. Legal under any circumstance goes from 29% on the generic questions to 13% when asked specifically about third trimester.
Great point, I didn't even read that far.
|
Norway28797 Posts
On September 23 2020 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 21:47 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 21:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:A fetus is not the same during every period of pregnancy and I think it makes sense to have different rules and regulations for different stages of pregnancy. I don't really know how I feel about 'laws against violence against the fetus'. To me, it mostly just makes sense from a perspective where a person deliberately kills it, and I don't think that's really what the law targets. That again would only be a law that really made sense if abortion isn't legal (nobody is gonna go for a 'kill your own fetus through punching yourself' or whatever if they can choose a safe legal inexpensive and available method). I don't want a person who kills a pregnant woman who had no idea she was pregnant (say it's in the first trimester) to be convicted of double murder, and I don't want a person who shoves a pregnant lady where it results in a miscarriage to be convicted of murder. But I also think kicking a visibly pregnant woman in the stomach is much worse than kicking a random woman in the stomach (not a fan of that either!). Wegandi, you do realize that most countries, and most 'pro-abortion' people actually want to have some restrictions on abortions? Like I want abortions to be freely available to anyone who wants one during the early stages, but I'm not really comfortable with people randomly deciding to end it 7 months into pregnancy. (Just to be clear - this also doesn't actually happen in any significant number of cases - people who get third trimester abortions are extremely unlikely to make that decision frivolously.) Franky the 'pro-abortion folks obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all' is about as big of a mischaracterization as 'the anti-abortion folks want 12 year olds who get pregnant after being raped by their dad to give birth to the baby' would have been if it came from a leftist, tbh (I assume neither you nor danglars would argue in favor of that, do correct me if I am wrong though). Try to drop these hyperbolic generalizations. Personally I think a 1 week old fetus has no rights and I don't think it resembles anything of a person/human, but I think a 34 week old fetus looks quite a lot like a baby and that you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion that late unless there's the whole life or serious harm of the mother / some very bad disease found in the child. (Edit: I would be inclined to think that this is a decision women can take for themselves though, and that it's not something that really needs to be controlled by some governing organ or whatever. I've known many pregnant women, some who ended up having abortions - but every woman who stayed pregnant 3 months into the pregnancy really wanted to have a kid, and I can't imagine any of them just randomly going 'oh this was a bad idea anyway, abort this baby' 5+ months into the pregnancy'. ) Figuring out exactly where to draw the line is up for debate, I don't have a real answer to that - but I basically have no issues with first trimester abortions and think third trimester abortions should be prohibited unless there's good reason X. I'm not sure it's as big of a mischaracterization as your analogy is (there are far more people who want no limit on abortions than there are who would hold that other position you mentioned), but nonetheless at least someone can articulate their position well rather than screaming that the other side just wants to control women with cries of misogyny. I would love for you to provide any sort of evidence that there are more people who want no limit on abortions at all. Where are all these people in favor of late term abortions?
I think this might be a 'women should be able to decide without a governing body determining whether their decision is just, because no woman is going to want an abortion after 7 months for no reason, and adding the element of having to present your case for a governing body will just add further harm to a woman in an extremely difficult life situation'. this group basically trusts women to not have late term abortions that aren't necessary - but in a way that technically would permit them to do so.
|
Another important point to bring up:
Wegandi's argument boils down to "let the states decide", which, on its face, is a bit more of a reasonable argument that conservatives put forth for a whole host of issues.
The problem is that states aren't special and don't hold some special ethical place wherein they are the best entities to make decisions. In fact, many states are absolute shitholes and are run by horrible regressive people that would actively enforce racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic policies if given the chance. this is why the federal government is necessary in the context of a person's everyday life; to protect American citizens from state government tyranny (among many other functions).
|
Also, I'll reiterate, yes, it is. You can't legally force people to donate plasma or organs even if they are already dead to support another person's life. You also can't force people to take particular actions (e.g. feed people, donate money, do CPR) to support another person's life unless they are a healthcare provider (i.e. went through the long process of consenting to becoming a professional whose job it is to keep people alive).
It's actually pretty well established that individuals generally don't have a duty to intervene to save other people as long as they don't have prior responsibility for that individual, and this prior responsibility requires consent first, something that a pregnant woman doesn't necessarily give.
Kwark also made this argument a few pages back. Even if we assume the two rights have equal weight, which I think is a) not as universally accepted as you believe, especially before this became a hot-button issue, and again b) unprovable anyway, we are left assessing a trolley problem. For better or worse, people do overwhelmingly feel that it's worse to act to end a life than fail to act to save a life.
Also, this really just highlights my point - there is no right answer. Both positions can be internally consistent. All I am really trying to say is that vilifying people who disagree on an unprovable value is not very productive.
I didn't intend for this to be a driveby but I am out. If it is still going later then I'll come back.
|
On September 23 2020 22:24 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 21:40 maybenexttime wrote:On September 23 2020 20:59 Gahlo wrote:On September 23 2020 20:22 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 13:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 23 2020 08:08 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 07:53 iamthedave wrote:
One of the Republican tentpole objectives has been overturning Roe v Wade. Can't get much more oppressive than 'we want to be able to control what women do with their bodies'. That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). Of course, the laws are already on the books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_ActThe Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1] Personally I'm hoping he nominates Lagoa.Politically a good move since she's Hispanic from Florida.I'm sure they will meet when Trump travels to Miami, her home city, on Friday.Keep Amy Barrett for his second term she can replace Thomas when he retires. I wonder what the pro-abortion folks think of this. I mean they obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all, nor do they seem to believe a fetus to be resembling anything of a person/human. Feel free to chime in folks. Do you think these laws should be axed? Pro-choice. The prospective mother's rights supersede the rights of the unborn. End of story. Even if the whole situation was imposed on the baby by the actions of its parents? Why? Should minors be allowed full autonomy of the choices in their life regardless of how it affects their parents' well being?
What a bizarre question. The fetus did not decide to appear in the mother's womb. On the other hand, the mother's decision to abort the fetus certainly does affect its wellbeing (assuming we determine that a fetus does have certain rights).
|
On September 23 2020 23:17 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 22:24 Gahlo wrote:On September 23 2020 21:40 maybenexttime wrote:On September 23 2020 20:59 Gahlo wrote:On September 23 2020 20:22 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 13:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 23 2020 08:08 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 07:53 iamthedave wrote:
One of the Republican tentpole objectives has been overturning Roe v Wade. Can't get much more oppressive than 'we want to be able to control what women do with their bodies'. That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). Of course, the laws are already on the books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_ActThe Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1] Personally I'm hoping he nominates Lagoa.Politically a good move since she's Hispanic from Florida.I'm sure they will meet when Trump travels to Miami, her home city, on Friday.Keep Amy Barrett for his second term she can replace Thomas when he retires. I wonder what the pro-abortion folks think of this. I mean they obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all, nor do they seem to believe a fetus to be resembling anything of a person/human. Feel free to chime in folks. Do you think these laws should be axed? Pro-choice. The prospective mother's rights supersede the rights of the unborn. End of story. Even if the whole situation was imposed on the baby by the actions of its parents? Why? Should minors be allowed full autonomy of the choices in their life regardless of how it affects their parents' well being? What a bizarre question. The fetus did not decide to appear in the mother's womb. On the other hand, the mother's decision to abort the fetus certainly does affect its wellbeing (assuming we determine that a fetus does have certain rights).
The mother also didn't necessarily consent to the fetus appearing in her womb.
She also most certainly didn't consent to instances like rape or lethal fetal abnormalities (to her and/or the fetus) that many Republicans don't want exceptions for in abortion bans.
|
On September 23 2020 22:04 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 22:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 21:57 Belisarius wrote:This is probably the only issue that comes up on TL where you will find me agreeing with Danglars, and certainly with Nettles. I don't generally see it as one that's productive to discuss, but it keeps coming up lately, so, ok. I'll take Dave's framing: On September 23 2020 19:35 iamthedave wrote:
You can't just remove the rights of women from discussions about pregnancy. By definition you are discussing putting the rights of the baby above the rights of the woman. That's right, that is the central discussion. Obviously, however, one of the rights being discussed is the right to continue living, which we as a society value very highly. If the right of person #1 to remain living is weighed against the right of person #2 to do something else, we almost always agree that person #1 should not die if there is any alternative. + Show Spoiler +I realise that I am making this statement in the shadow of BLM, so I will reiterate that I believe black people should not die when interacting with cops, and if some republican somewhere believes otherwise, his view does not change the fact that this is a core value society is built on. Therefore, the question is whether the child is afforded that right. This is also obvious, but I think it's very important to stop and realise that is not a technical or medical question; it's an unanswerable moral question. This is why the issue is so vexed. If the child is considered human, his/her human right to remain alive trumps almost anything else. If the fetus is not, then the whole thing becomes an issue of women's health, which almost nobody here has any business holding an opinion on. Both positions flow completely from their premise, and the premise is unprovable one way or the other. To me, this is almost intractable, but its intractability is not helped by each side calling the other baby-murderers or misogynists, and that seems to happen a lot both elsewhere and around here. Drone's position seems very reasonable to me and is a good place to start, even if I don't entirely agree. Comparisons to slavery are not. You put an important qualifier in there: "If there is any alternative". It's a generally accepted premise that you can't force an individual to take an action, much less sacrifice their well-being, to support another's life if the giving party doesn't consent.. + Show Spoiler +Pregnancy places significant physical, emotional/social, and economic hardship on a woman. One of the primary arguments of the pro-choice view is that women don't consent to becoming pregnant just because they are physically capable of it. Therefore, forcing a woman to carry to term is a non-consensual coercion of a woman into sustaining another life to her own detriment for a prolonged period of time.
If, as you said, there was a viable alternative (fetuses could be removed and cared for/carried to term without significant burden to the woman) then this wouldn't be a discussion; the fetus could have that right and a woman would be on her way.
The problem is that this isn't a viable alternative. The pro-life position necessarily forces a woman to undergo prolonged hardships and suffering to support another life without her consent. Is it? If the baby is 6 weeks old and the parents refuse to care for it, so it dies, do we not hold them accountable? This is an extremely bad analogy, because parents of a baby have the option to surrender the child for adoption and just not be parents anymore. A pregnant woman does not have the option to just not be pregnant any more except via abortion.
|
Let's not forget that the states who want to get rid of abortions, are also the states who teach the less about sexual education. It seems like a major lose-lose to me, as teen pregnancy often end the prospect of studying for the mother.
|
United States43989 Posts
On September 23 2020 21:57 Belisarius wrote:This is probably the only issue that comes up on TL where you will find me agreeing with Danglars, and certainly with Nettles. I don't generally see it as one that's productive to discuss, but it keeps coming up lately, so, ok. I'll take Dave's framing: Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 19:35 iamthedave wrote:
You can't just remove the rights of women from discussions about pregnancy. By definition you are discussing putting the rights of the baby above the rights of the woman. That's right, that is the central discussion. Obviously, however, one of the rights being discussed is the right to continue living, which we as a society value very highly. If the right of person #1 to remain living is weighed against the right of person #2 to do something else, we almost always agree that person #1 should not die if there is any alternative. + Show Spoiler +I realise that I am making this statement in the shadow of BLM, so I will reiterate that I believe black people should not die when interacting with cops, and if some republican somewhere believes otherwise, his view does not change the fact that this is a core value society is built on. Therefore, the question the whole thing turns on is whether the child should be afforded that right. I think it's very important to stop and realise that this is not a technical or medical question; it's an unanswerable moral question. This is why the issue is so vexed. If the child is considered human, his/her human right to remain alive trumps almost anything else. If the fetus is not, then the whole thing becomes an issue of women's health, which almost nobody here has any business holding an opinion on. Both positions flow completely from their premise, and the premise is unprovable one way or the other. To me, this is almost intractable, but it's certainly not helped by each side calling the other baby-murderers or misogynists, and that seems to happen a lot both elsewhere and around here. Drone's position seems very reasonable to me and is a good place to start, even if I don't entirely agree. Comparisons to slavery are not.
There is not a right to continue living that trumps bodily autonomy. If there were then we would requisition kidneys from people all the time to give them to donors. No such right exists, you cannot force other people to give up their own bodies, even if your own life is dependent upon their body.
Pro-choice believers recognize that bodily autonomy is one of the most fundamental rights and that a fetus is, through no fault of its own, biologically dependent upon continued support from another human being. Additionally they recognize that the support represents a significant burden that does permanent damage to the other human in addition to subjecting them to a barrage of hormones, drastic body modification, physical limitations, incredible amounts of pain, and either surgery or genital tearing. A fetus quite literally cannibalizes the body of the mother, the resource demands of the fetus supersede the biological needs of the mother to the point that the mother's bones are stripped for resources.
I believe there is a moral obligation to help others and after learning that I was a match for a guy with leukemia I voluntarily allowed my body to be used to incubate stem cells which became the basis for his immune system after they nuked him. But the point is that I chose to do that, it was something I believed was worthwhile to save the life of another human. I believe that, all things being equal, pregnant women should make the same choice I did. I am, in the most literal sense, pro-life. Life is something I'm in favour of and I believe there's a moral obligation to support it.
But I can't extend that pro-life belief to the logical extreme of requisitioning the bodies of other human beings, and ultimately that is what an abortion ban requires. Requisitioning their labour and their resources to fund food stamps etc. are a lesser evil I will incorporate within my pro-life stance. Opt out organ donation by default for deceased people is something I support as a pro-life individual. I would probably support tax credits for blood plasma donation too. But once we start requisitioning the bodies of women as incubators I find it untenable. I'm pro-life, but up to a point.
What's weird to me too is that a lot of people who claim to be pro-life actually draw the line substantially earlier than I do. I will consent to having my labour and resources requisitioned to ensure that children don't starve but believe that requisitioning bodies is a step too far. But many people seem to believe that labour and resources should not be requisitioned for SNAP while also believing that bodies should be requisitioned as incubators. That's pretty strange.
I also wonder why there isn't more attention paid to unimplanted embryos from IVF. Why not mandate that women of child bearing age are drafted into a lottery and those selected are required to carry the embryos to term. If we're requiring that women ensure that embryos are born, despite bodily autonomy, we should commit to that.
|
United States43989 Posts
On September 23 2020 22:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:On September 23 2020 21:47 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 21:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:A fetus is not the same during every period of pregnancy and I think it makes sense to have different rules and regulations for different stages of pregnancy. I don't really know how I feel about 'laws against violence against the fetus'. To me, it mostly just makes sense from a perspective where a person deliberately kills it, and I don't think that's really what the law targets. That again would only be a law that really made sense if abortion isn't legal (nobody is gonna go for a 'kill your own fetus through punching yourself' or whatever if they can choose a safe legal inexpensive and available method). I don't want a person who kills a pregnant woman who had no idea she was pregnant (say it's in the first trimester) to be convicted of double murder, and I don't want a person who shoves a pregnant lady where it results in a miscarriage to be convicted of murder. But I also think kicking a visibly pregnant woman in the stomach is much worse than kicking a random woman in the stomach (not a fan of that either!). Wegandi, you do realize that most countries, and most 'pro-abortion' people actually want to have some restrictions on abortions? Like I want abortions to be freely available to anyone who wants one during the early stages, but I'm not really comfortable with people randomly deciding to end it 7 months into pregnancy. (Just to be clear - this also doesn't actually happen in any significant number of cases - people who get third trimester abortions are extremely unlikely to make that decision frivolously.) Franky the 'pro-abortion folks obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all' is about as big of a mischaracterization as 'the anti-abortion folks want 12 year olds who get pregnant after being raped by their dad to give birth to the baby' would have been if it came from a leftist, tbh (I assume neither you nor danglars would argue in favor of that, do correct me if I am wrong though). Try to drop these hyperbolic generalizations. Personally I think a 1 week old fetus has no rights and I don't think it resembles anything of a person/human, but I think a 34 week old fetus looks quite a lot like a baby and that you shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion that late unless there's the whole life or serious harm of the mother / some very bad disease found in the child. (Edit: I would be inclined to think that this is a decision women can take for themselves though, and that it's not something that really needs to be controlled by some governing organ or whatever. I've known many pregnant women, some who ended up having abortions - but every woman who stayed pregnant 3 months into the pregnancy really wanted to have a kid, and I can't imagine any of them just randomly going 'oh this was a bad idea anyway, abort this baby' 5+ months into the pregnancy'. ) Figuring out exactly where to draw the line is up for debate, I don't have a real answer to that - but I basically have no issues with first trimester abortions and think third trimester abortions should be prohibited unless there's good reason X. I'm not sure it's as big of a mischaracterization as your analogy is (there are far more people who want no limit on abortions than there are who would hold that other position you mentioned), but nonetheless at least someone can articulate their position well rather than screaming that the other side just wants to control women with cries of misogyny. I would love for you to provide any sort of evidence that there are more people who want no limit on abortions at all. Where are all these people in favor of late term abortions? I think this might be a 'women should be able to decide without a governing body determining whether their decision is just, because no woman is going to want an abortion after 7 months for no reason, and adding the element of having to present your case for a governing body will just add further harm to a woman in an extremely difficult life situation'. this group basically trusts women to not have late term abortions that aren't necessary - but in a way that technically would permit them to do so.
There's no such thing as an abortion after viability, only a premature birth by c-section.
|
On September 23 2020 21:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Franky the 'pro-abortion folks obviously don't consider the unborn having any rights at all' is about as big of a mischaracterization as 'the anti-abortion folks want 12 year olds who get pregnant after being raped by their dad to give birth to the baby' would have been if it came from a leftist
Meanwhile in Brazil ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-53820497
|
So this is why Louisville declared a curfew for the next three nights. Not even one homicide charge in the Breonna Taylor investigation...
Grand jury indicts one officer in Breonna Taylor case
The Jefferson county grand jury has indicted one of the officers involved in the shooting of Breonna Taylor.
Louisville police officer Brett Hankinson faces three felony counts of first-degree wanton endangerment. None of the other officers involved in the fatal shooting were indicted. No homicide charges were issued.
Reacting to the announcement on MSNBC, the Revered Al Sharpton, a civil rights leader, condemned the charges as “grossly insufficient.”
Apparently it's not even related to Breonna :
When the grand jury indictment against Brett Hankinson was read, the judge said the former police officer was being charged for firing shots into the apartments of residents with the initials “CD,” “TM” and “Z.F.”
The initials “BT” for Breonna Taylor were not mentioned. So it appears Hankinson was charged for some of his behavior that night, but those charges do not directly relate to the fatal shooting of Taylor, as a staff writer at the Marshall Project noted:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/sep/23/joe-biden-campaign-north-carolina-donald-trump-covid-coronavirus-supreme-court-us-politics-live?page=with:block-5f6b88598f08457010162e67#block-5f6b88598f08457010162e67
|
Basically charging the pig with shooting recklessly (at her neighbors). Could do less than a year even with a guilty verdict. Nothing for the other officers.
Getting to the election might be a stretch for this country, let alone getting through it.
|
Another gross miscarriage of justice in this shitheap of a country.
Every day the US appears less and less worth salvaging, not that many Americans even want to bother trying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
