Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Most of the arguments / memes which I see concerning abortion fall into one of two categories:

1: Arguments in favor of abortion, made from a point of view which pre-supposes that a fetus is NOT alive, and fail to address the fact that those opposed to abortion believe that a fetus IS alive and functionally indistinguishable from a human, and

2: Arguments in opposition to abortion, made from a point of view which pre-supposes that a fetus IS alive and functionally indistinguishable from a human, and fail to address the fact that those in favor of abortion do not share this opinion.


Both sides then commit an ad hominem fallacy, by drawing conclusions about their opponents' motives without understanding their underlying assumptions. Eg: anti's will accuse pro's of being murderers, because anti's apply their own moral beliefs to the actions of the pro's, and pro's, who don't equate termination with murder, can think of only one possible reason for the anti's being opposed to it, which must be that conservatives want to control women's bodies.

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

That's all well and good . . . and to be honest this is not an issue that's of much interest to me. However, the push of late for extremely late-term abortions (even going so far as to discuss termination of an unwanted child "accidentally" born alive) is murder, plain and simple. I also struggle to understand why the push for such laws when almost all abortions happen < 13 weeks? If it inflames sentiment in someone like me, then it seems these laws are counter-productive to the pro-choice position.

In general, the trends on abortion are positive:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/...1.htm#T12_down

DNMakinson

iTrader: (3)

Hornet, the data you showed is not valid because it only included women.

Joe, I wonder if the movie, "Unplanned" will help with item 1? I have not seen it, but reports are that it has opened some eyes (hearts?).

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Political grandstanding.

Seriously. Look back through various social media feeds from when the late-term law was being tossed around. A surprisingly large number of people who oppose abortion in general assumed that there were in fact lots of later-term / partial-birth abortions happening. I mean, why else would they need a law, right?

The same logic applies to congressional bills requiring all eligible citizens to own a firearm, requiring males to receive consent from their spouse before masturbating (and then report the discharge of sperm to county law enforcement), and so on. None of them address any serious issue, they're just done to draw attention to a controversy and attempt to make "the other side" seem irrational.

BGordon

The core issue (for me) is this.

If, as anti-abortion folks argue, abortion is murder ..... then...... every woman who has an abortion has committed first degree premeditated murder.
The simple process of being pregnant,then making the decision to have an abortion, then going through with it, then paying for having it done to you follows all the steps required to prove first degree premeditated murder if a human being is killed.
In my mind the only correct penalty for first degree premeditated murder should be the death penalty.
There are lesser legal penalties but my personal opinion is that if you kill another person without mitigating circumstances then your life should ended in order to balance the scales of justice.

Since I personally do not believe that a woman who has an abortion is a murderer then I do not believe that abortion is murder.
By extension an unborn fetus is NOT a child.

For those who believe that abortion is murder I would ask only one question.
Are you willing to personally take a gun and put a bullet in the brain of every woman who has ever had an abortion?

In the words of Eddard Stark in the first episode of Game Of Thrones.
"The person who passes judgement should also be willing to wield the sword"

DNMakinson

iTrader: (3)

BGordon. Insightful analysis. Not all-inclusive, but a point of thought.

Ex Post Facto comes to mind, but that does not change future occurrences, were laws to be that exacting.

Conversely, you are concluding not a child based on you don't want it to be murder; that is an interesting reverse logic.

That last comment predates GOT. It at least goes back to Deuteronomy of the Bible.

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

Indeed. But talk about backfiring. They've managed to turn a lot of people who were either indifferent and/or supportive of early-term abortion rights into pro-lifers. Based on, admittedly, a limited sample set of personal acquaintances.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

But even here, there is broad disagreement.

I acknowledge that you expressed this as being your own opinion. The problem is that many people disagree. And here, there is little uniformity in the demographic makeup of the nay-sayers. Many people who oppose capital punishment are not religious, and find it to be uncivil, barbaric, arbitrarily applied and not without error in its administration. Others who oppose it are the very same religious types who oppose abortion on the grounds that it is a form of homicide. And this, despite the fact that most of the mainstream religious texts in western culture condone capital punishment.

There is considerable evidence to indicate that capital punishment does not deter homicide. Within the US, as a broad generalization, states which practice capital punishment tend to have marginally higher rates of homicide than those which do not. (source.)

Then you have the argument of "An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind." Many people and groups believe that the death penalty is appropriate for a wide range of crimes, from treason and rape down to blasphemy and serious financial crimes.

Heck, I'd bet that you could find people in the US today who would argue that wearing a red baseball cap and voting republican should be punishable by death. (Or, at the very least, exile, which amounts largely to the same thing.)

BGordon

For those who believe abortion is murder but believe that the penalty for premeditated murder should be jail time I would pose the same question;

"Are you willing to personally incarcerate in prison for 10 year to life every woman who has ever had an abortion?"

The answer for a reasonable person is still the same.
NO, I would not be willing to kill every female who ever had an abortion.
NO, I would not be willing to incarcerate every woman who ever had an abortion.

The question of legal in the here and now but illegal at some time in the future is side tracking the entire discussion.
An abortion that happened 10 years ago gave the same result as one that happened 5 minutes ago and will have the same result as every abortion that will happen in the foreseeable future.
It will be that way right up to the time that a fetus can be removed from the woman and placed in storage for future development.

For me personally it would be completely the opposite.
I would strongly defend any woman who was being faced with that sort of penalty.
That willingness for me to decide that I would defend women from that caricature of justice says that those who declare abortion as murder are far outside the accepted social norm within our society.
Either that or I am a monster who condones cold blooded murder.
If you disagree go back to the beginning and figure out where the process of obtaining an abortion fails to meet the standards for premeditated murder if a human being is being aborted.

There is no middle ground here.
It is either;
A. A woman's choice to have a medical procedure done to her body.
...or...
B. First degree premeditated murder.

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

Have you read the Roe v. Wade decision? It is very much middle-ground. The Court (written by Justice O'Connor) struggled with trying to find a solution in which all prior precedent was as black and white as your statement. The decision relies heavily upon medical science and the concepts of trimesters and viability to achieve middle ground. You can agree or disagree, but there it is.

I am not one of those that believes that a confused, teenage girl who gets an abortion early in pregnancy (98%+ of all abortions) is a murderer. OTOH, the theoretical scenario described by the Governor of Virginia where a baby is delivered alive and healthy in the 9th month of pregnancy and is subsequently euthanized . . . that is 100% murder.

BGordon

I have not read Roe v. Wade and understand that the legal discussion is very deep and complicated.
Such a legal discussion is for scholars just as any sort of future laws would be.
Lots of things are wrong (in my personal opinion) but are legal and lots of things are illegal but do not seem wrong to me.
The discussion I am having is not with lawyers and judges but rather with people who are marching and carrying signs that say "Abortion is Murder".

My understanding and arguments concerning abortion center around right and wrong as I can personally justify the concept to another layperson.
The subject of abortion goes much deeper for people than legal or illegal.
It is one of the core subjects that seem to define our individual beliefs within our society that laws do not seem to change.
Others that come to mind are religion, marriage, sexual orientation, personal freedom, etc.

Intentionally killing a baby after it is born is murder in my eyes unless there is some overriding medical necessity, no matter what some law might say.
On that we are in 100% agreement.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

In your scenario, wouldn't the woman be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and the doctor who actually performed the procedure would be the actual murderer? It's just splitting hairs here because that's what much of this discussion is anyway.

BGordon

Could be so.
I am not a lawyer and don't know the finer points of what constitutes conspiracy.
Honestly, it is a subject that probably differs depending on the local and/or state and/or federal laws.

I would equate it more closely to a woman who pays someone to kill her husband with a sword to remove his head and bring it to her.
She did not do the act but she is guilty of first degree premeditated murder in my opinion.
Anyone else who is involved also shares blame but she is the primary guilty party.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

There's quite a lot of middle ground. Approximately 40 weeks' worth, specifically.

It hinges upon coming to an understanding of the point at which the combination of a sperm cell and an ovum become a living person.

One view, which is presently fashionable with those who are opposed to all abortions on purportedly religious grounds, is that "life begins at conception." That is to say that at the very moment at which the sperm cell enters the egg and fertilizes it, some magical transformation takes place in which the now-fertilized egg is bestowed with a soul.

Ironically, this is very much at odds with what the bulk of what the Christian bible has to say about the origin of life. Mostly, it states that life begins when breath enters the body, and ends when breath leaves the body. And thus, the Bible actually makes a pretty good citation for people who favor the legality of abortion even very late in the pregnancy. Prior to that, an unborn child is treated more or less with the same value as a piece of livestock. Eg: Exodus 21:22-25 says that if a man strikes a pregnant woman causing a miscarriage, he must pay a small fine to the husband. But if he gravely harms the woman, then "you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Clearly a huge distinction between the status of an unborn child and an adult woman. And that's coming from theological laws written by a society in which women were second-class citizens.

Personally, if I had to stick a pin in this one, I'd say that life begins when coherent neural activity, which is consistent with consciousness, occurs in the brain. This is typically around the 24-25 week mark. Perhaps not coincidentally, this timeframe is also the presently-accepted medicinal definition of viability in a pregnancy, meaning the point at which a fetus is capable of surviving outside of the womb (given adequate medical support), which is what the court used in deciding Roe v. Wade.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Coherent neural activity isn't present in much of our general population and a significant portion of Congress.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Orange.

Man.

Bad.


Because that's what the box with lights in it told me.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

That's an excellent illustration of a point I was making earlier.

In this case, it's obvious that Maryam Monsef does not equate abortion with murder. As such, she cannot understand the objections of people who do equate abortion with murder. As such, she can only understand anti-abortion laws as an attempt to control womens' bodies. To her, they could serve no other purpose, as the fetus itself has no person-hood, and is therefore simply not relevant to the discussion.

rleete

iTrader: (21)

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Lol.