Abortion: Legal or Illegal

Epignosis wrote: 1. You don't understand property rights then.  Your body is your property.

That, while true, is a red herring. If your body is simply property, then whence come action? The body is not merely property. It cannot be bought and sold. It enjoys a special set of privileges. It is the active vessel of the individual's will. I'm sure you can find some Supreme Court decision or five where this has been declared with far greater eloquence than I could muster.

Epignosis wrote: 2. #1 has no bearing on this.  Say a woman would keep her baby unless the baby would be disabled.  The baby is, so she aborts.  Plenty of children now have severe disabilities and they are burdens.  Can the parents then "abort?"  Why or why not?

The argument from 1), that the sovereignty of the body is no longer threatened, does apply. Once it has exited the body, they are clearly separate entities, and any individual causing harm to the infant is clearly violating that infant's rights. I'm not sure why you think this argument does not apply. Can you provide clarification as to what is missing?

I will say, though, that I always hate that particular situation. I know that for the good of all, many should be euthanized, but I cannot ethically justify it. It is a tragedy for all involved.

Epignosis wrote: 3. Then you clearly do not read much.

I am suitably shocked. I concede the point; you are correct that this poorly-conceived argument could be used to justify any number of things. It is easily flattened from a legal standpoint: you have the right to be free from emotional harm, but not to cause undue harm in doing attempting to escape it. For it to be valid in the case of abortion, it must be accepted that abortion does not cause such harm, and the argument then arguably (ha-ha) circular.

Epignosis wrote: And I can demonstrate that you don't read well... All pro-choice arguments?  Did I say that?  Here is my quote from page 30: Epignosis wrote: Most if not all arguments against abortion can be used in support of infanticide.

As stated previously, I disproved the notion that all arguments could be used in such a manner. Disproving the "most" part is generally infeasible as I'd have to know the population of all arguments.

Epignosis wrote: PS: Using words like "Ergo" doesn't force any currency on your words.

I get tired of saying "therefore" over and over. Gotta mix things up, ya know?

^I can't believe you can't marry if you have AIDS. Disgusting intromission of the law in personal life. If someone loves somebody else and wants to take care of that person and marry, what's so wrong? Well, marriage is a state institution after all so I guess the state can regulate it as it pleases.

I agree of course with most of the rest (though I don't particularly love the idea of mandatory tests for anything).

Holding back a marriage license doesn't keep people from having sexual relations. The disease will still be spread, including from mother to child.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I can't think of a more asinine policy than withholding marriage licenses. I don't know what it's supposed to accomplish.

Parentless b*****d children with AIDS.

Gamemako wrote: Perhaps I have misunderstood you. I cannot say what part of a woman's upbringing or genetics would lead her to love or loathe pregnancy. Again, I used the example of something that is choice so it would be easier to swallow. Clearly, I mishandled that one pretty badly. Regardless, some event or combination of events lead to a person's attitude towards pregnancy, and if that is reflected in tangible demographics, then it may help explain the divide.

I think we misunderstood each other. I would agree.

Gamemako wrote: Yes, that was the intent. That was the occasion where I used no qualifier at all (i.e. the time I did speak in absolutes). Come to think of it, I also said that religion has no place in law, but included a long bit about why I think there really aren't exceptions to the rule.

It depends on what you mean by religion in the law. Most major religions speak against murder, so our homicide laws would be religion in the law. Clearly, you do not mean that though.

Gamemako wrote: The problem is that she's describing the same experience in two ways: once as negative and once as positive. Estimation of your knowledge is one thing, but she is simply describing an experience. Does she hate the experience but like having gone through it? That is the notion that reminded me of Aronson's study. I don't know. Then again, those sorts of effects are not usually conscious.

Whenever I go to a really good concert I always think, I wish I didn't spend that money and I used my time more productively. Every experience combines good and bad.

Gamemako wrote: That is possible, but root canals do not have the positive connotations in society that childbearing does. This notion that being a mother is somehow transcendent is pervasive in our culture, but not necessarily true in any sense.

There are very positive connotations that go along with having good teeth. I think the situation fits quite well.

I think we've pretty much convinced those with differing opinions to change their's so we can all go home now.  Oh wait, I already am at home.

Edited by Slartibartfast - February 01 2012 at 12:11

Actually, the title of this thread is pretty silly. There is only one answer: legal, where it is not illegal (and vice versa).

Negoba wrote: Slarti, I still wouldn't mind actually hearing your case and reasoning. Because I have known people to change their mind. Mine certainly isn't as black and white as it once was.

OK, but I have said it before.  Life does begin at conception because that is where the two sets of genetic material combine to form a separate set.  All fertilized eggs do not naturally implant and develop into babies.  If you believe God's will is paramount, then God is an abortionist.  Ideally when it comes to pregnancy both the man and the woman should have a say it it but I give the woman veto power.  "Partial birth" abortion is a red herring.  Women don't carry a pregnancy to that level of development just to have a convenience abortion. Those who are the most adamant against abortion also have contraception in their gun sights.  Contraception is how you avoid unwanted pregnancies.  Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.  Every abortion does not stop a beating heart.  If you make it more difficult to have an abortion then you are guaranteeing that the fetus or baby will be more developed.


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 01 2012 at 12:28

Negoba wrote:   Women don't carry a pregnancy to that level of development just to have a convenience abortion. Absolutely, but about 50% of the few procedures that were done were for maternal MENTAL health. Absolutely no reason those babies couldn't have been delivered and placed. Again that was before 2003.

Citation?  Nice round number.  But it begs the question, should the other 50% be denied?

*The fetus had died late in development, and delivering it through natural means would have harmed the mother both physically and psychologically.

*The fetus suffered from anencephaly, meaning that while it would carry to term, it would not have developed most of its brain. If not still born, such a child will usually die less than five days after birth. This defect is not usually discovered until late into the second trimester, when a partial birth or dilation and evacuation are the only options. The ban then leaves mothers with a choice between dilation and evacuation, or giving birth to their brainless child, then watching it die. Your compassionate conservative President’s proudest accomplishment, ladies and gentlemen.

*The fetus developed a severe case of hydrocephalus, a swelling of the skull (due to a flooding of cerebrospinal fluid around the brain) which in extreme cases makes it impossible to pass through the birth canal. Many (about one in 500 American children) suffer from milder cases of the disease, but the ban does not make exceptions for cases wherein the mother would suffer permanent debilitating injury (swelling can go up to 250 percent normal size), only to give birth to a hopelessly brain-damaged, if not stillborn, infant.

And yeah I'd totally support them getting mental health treatment and adoption if that didn't work.


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 01 2012 at 13:27

Slartibartfast wrote: Negoba wrote:   Women don't carry a pregnancy to that level of development just to have a convenience abortion. Absolutely, but about 50% of the few procedures that were done were for maternal MENTAL health. Absolutely no reason those babies couldn't have been delivered and placed. Again that was before 2003. Citation?  Nice round number.  But it begs the question, should the other 50% be denied? *The fetus had died late in development, and delivering it through natural means would have harmed the mother both physically and psychologically. *The fetus suffered from anencephaly, meaning that while it would carry to term, it would not have developed most of its brain. If not still born, such a child will usually die less than five days after birth. This defect is not usually discovered until late into the second trimester, when a partial birth or dilation and evacuation are the only options. The ban then leaves mothers with a choice between dilation and evacuation, or giving birth to their brainless child, then watching it die. Your compassionate conservative President’s proudest accomplishment, ladies and gentlemen. *The fetus developed a severe case of hydrocephalus, a swelling of the skull (due to a flooding of cerebrospinal fluid around the brain) which in extreme cases makes it impossible to pass through the birth canal. Many (about one in 500 American children) suffer from milder cases of the disease, but the ban does not make exceptions for cases wherein the mother would suffer permanent debilitating injury (swelling can go up to 250 percent normal size), only to give birth to a hopelessly brain-damaged, if not stillborn, infant. And yeah I'd totally support them getting mental health treatment and adoption if that didn't work.