Some good that could come out of the Abortion Heartbeat laws?

[Gun Nut]

Another analogy may be a squatter in a building. Forcibly removing them vs no longer providing the building with power/gas (so they freeze to death) etc. To perfect that analogy you'd have to have brought the squatter there in the first place though. The unborn didn't put itself/himself/herself in the situation.

There is no guarantee of pregnancy resulting from sexual intercourse... it's a miracle it works at all... So maybe a better analogy would be putting up a sign that says, "squatters might be safe here for some unknown amount of time", rather than actually embedding one there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not believe that the government should have control over any law abiding citizen's body.

Are you with Kevorkian, and want to put condemned prisoners in comas for medical experiments and organ donations? I just worry about the distinction you had to make, there.

If you don't have a certain amount of control over a criminal's body you can't throw him in jail.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I do not believe that the government should have control over any law abiding citizen's body.

Are you with Kevorkian, and want to put condemned prisoners in comas for medical experiments and organ donations? I just worry about the distinction you had to make, there.

If you don't have a certain amount of control over a criminal's body you can't throw him in jail.

Well, we have a certain amount of control over a soldier's body, or we'd never get them in the war zone. But we still can't for ce a soldier to donate a kidney.

It just seems that if we're discussing rights, they should not be limited to law-abiding citizens. Can we force felons to have abortions to limit the strain on the prison hospital?
What about people incarcerated but not yet convicted?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Another analogy may be a squatter in a building. Forcibly removing them vs no longer providing the building with power/gas (so they freeze to death) etc. To perfect that analogy you'd have to have brought the squatter there in the first place though. The unborn didn't put itself/himself/herself in the situation.

This is the real world where having the rights to one's own body isn't contingent upon a test that such a right pass a damn analogy test! Condemning a woman to having a child against her choice is barbaric. Pregnancy is complicated, results in irreversible health considerations which can vary, and can lead to worse things like severe/suicidal depression.

No woman should be forced into this because of an analogy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You’re finding similarities between the two; I get that, but if the overarching primary goal is to not cause harm, then the difference lies there, not in the discovered similarities. If the purpose was to control people’s bodies, you’d have a point, but that’s not the intent. In both cases you mention, members of society would be forced against their will to do something, but why allow that to think we’re in danger of the latter happening since we’re in danger of the first happening—in light of the fact the goal is to not cause harm, not control bodies against peoples will?

Funny, because your calculus doesn't seem to take the harm of the woman into account. Sure, the pregnancy most likely wouldn't kill the woman, but it could. The pregnancy most certainly will cause some long-term, if not somewhat mild (women feel free to argue otherwise, I won't disagree) discomfort with certain organs. A woman can suffer from post-partum depression, with some depression lasting years, some being severe. This ignores all of the discomforts of pregnancy, ... the whole birthing thing..., weight displacement, back pain, sleep deprivation, sickness, etc...

...and we could go into the costs both in money and time of pregnancy as well, loss of standard of living (no drinking, need to avoid areas with smoking, other dietary changes).

Cause no harm huh? Why is it, so many men are pro-life? Is it because they were so oblivious to their own wives trials with pregnancy and birth, or are we talking about guys who are looking at pregnancy through the innocent eyes of a toddler and are completely and unabashedly ignorant of all things regarding pregnancy, but feel like they are somewhat of a moral authority on it?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Another analogy may be a squatter in a building. Forcibly removing them vs no longer providing the building with power/gas (so they freeze to death) etc. To perfect that analogy you'd have to have brought the squatter there in the first place though. The unborn didn't put itself/himself/herself in the situation.

This is the real world where having the rights to one's own body isn't contingent upon a test that such a right pass a damn analogy test! Condemning a woman to having a child against her choice is barbaric. Pregnancy is complicated, results in irreversible health considerations which can vary, and can lead to worse things like severe/suicidal depression.

No woman should be forced into this because of an analogy.

Nobody should be forced to do anything because of an analogy. Analogies are meant to illustrate and explore various aspects of something. Abortion isn't simply about a woman's body and nothing else to those who believe the unborn is a person who is our moral equal. To them it is the weighing of her choice vs his/her life. Choosing death of another that you put into a life or death situation is rightly a moral issue.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Another analogy may be a squatter in a building. Forcibly removing them vs no longer providing the building with power/gas (so they freeze to death) etc. To perfect that analogy you'd have to have brought the squatter there in the first place though. The unborn didn't put itself/himself/herself in the situation.

This is the real world where having the rights to one's own body isn't contingent upon a test that such a right pass a damn analogy test! Condemning a woman to having a child against her choice is barbaric. Pregnancy is complicated, results in irreversible health considerations which can vary, and can lead to worse things like severe/suicidal depression.

No woman should be forced into this because of an analogy.

Nobody should be forced to do anything because of an analogy. Analogies are meant to illustrate and explore various aspects of something. Abortion isn't simply about a woman's body and nothing else to those who believe the unborn is a person who is our moral equal. To them it is the weighing of her choice vs his/her life. Choosing death of another that you put into a life or death situation is rightly a moral issue.

Analogies are meant to muddle the conversation. The question at hand is whether a woman should be forced by the Government to give birth once they become pregnant.

People that believe the unborn are people are free to do so and not get an abortion. It is their choice.

As Americans, we have a moral obligation to ensure a woman’s right to choose how to regulate her own body is protected. Women shouldn’t be forced to have abortions and women shouldn’t be forced to endure pregnancy. That is the only moral option we have.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you don't have a certain amount of control over a criminal's body you can't throw him in jail.

Well, we have a certain amount of control over a soldier's body, or we'd never get them in the war zone. But we still can't for ce a soldier to donate a kidney.

It just seems that if we're discussing rights, they should not be limited to law-abiding citizens. Can we force felons to have abortions to limit the strain on the prison hospital?
What about people incarcerated but not yet convicted?

Which in no way negates my point. No control means no jail.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Another analogy may be a squatter in a building. Forcibly removing them vs no longer providing the building with power/gas (so they freeze to death) etc. To perfect that analogy you'd have to have brought the squatter there in the first place though. The unborn didn't put itself/himself/herself in the situation.

This is the real world where having the rights to one's own body isn't contingent upon a test that such a right pass a damn analogy test! Condemning a woman to having a child against her choice is barbaric. Pregnancy is complicated, results in irreversible health considerations which can vary, and can lead to worse things like severe/suicidal depression.

No woman should be forced into this because of an analogy.

This. What right does a religious person to force his religion on another person?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Another analogy may be a squatter in a building. Forcibly removing them vs no longer providing the building with power/gas (so they freeze to death) etc. To perfect that analogy you'd have to have brought the squatter there in the first place though. The unborn didn't put itself/himself/herself in the situation.

This is the real world where having the rights to one's own body isn't contingent upon a test that such a right pass a damn analogy test! Condemning a woman to having a child against her choice is barbaric. Pregnancy is complicated, results in irreversible health considerations which can vary, and can lead to worse things like severe/suicidal depression.

No woman should be forced into this because of an analogy.

Nobody should be forced to do anything because of an analogy. Analogies are meant to illustrate and explore various aspects of something. Abortion isn't simply about a woman's body and nothing else to those who believe the unborn is a person who is our moral equal. To them it is the weighing of her choice vs his/her life. Choosing death of another that you put into a life or death situation is rightly a moral issue.

It's fine to believe that an unborn person is a person who is your moral equal. I do not believe this. Why should your opinion be the one that counts?

 

[fast]

You’re finding similarities between the two; I get that, but if the overarching primary goal is to not cause harm, then the difference lies there, not in the discovered similarities. If the purpose was to control people’s bodies, you’d have a point, but that’s not the intent. In both cases you mention, members of society would be forced against their will to do something, but why allow that to think we’re in danger of the latter happening since we’re in danger of the first happening—in light of the fact the goal is to not cause harm, not control bodies against peoples will?

Funny, because your calculus doesn't seem to take the harm of the woman into account. Sure, the pregnancy most likely wouldn't kill the woman, but it could. The pregnancy most certainly will cause some long-term, if not somewhat mild (women feel free to argue otherwise, I won't disagree) discomfort with certain organs. A woman can suffer from post-partum depression, with some depression lasting years, some being severe. This ignores all of the discomforts of pregnancy, ... the whole birthing thing..., weight displacement, back pain, sleep deprivation, sickness, etc...

...and we could go into the costs both in money and time of pregnancy as well, loss of standard of living (no drinking, need to avoid areas with smoking, other dietary changes).

Cause no harm huh? Why is it, so many men are pro-life? Is it because they were so oblivious to their own wives trials with pregnancy and birth, or are we talking about guys who are looking at pregnancy through the innocent eyes of a toddler and are completely and unabashedly ignorant of all things regarding pregnancy, but feel like they are somewhat of a moral authority on it?

You can’t get too wrapped up focusing on a more important issue when the issue at hand just happens to have lesser importance. If a black man spits in a cops face and the cop takes out a gun and shoots him, there’s going to be some important issues brought up for discussion, and whether the spitting was full-on malicious and intentional or more of an unintentional gleaking situation where saliva unfortunately and mildy sprays on another ... would be wholly irrelevant and immaterial, but when the subject is done to death and someone decides to begin a different discussion of interest (oh say) whether the spit was substantive and with intention vs negligible and inadvertent, what might happen to be more important is actually off topic on certain ancillary discussions.

Read the thread title. Find it reinforced in the first paragraph. Look at the two main examples given. Even if he’s being facetious, the underlying point is reminiscent of the slippery slope fallacy, as if the laws that would have allowed certain instances for “woman’s bodies to be controlled,” that it might not be long before it might happen to men as well. There’s a problem with that line of thinking, and I was addressing that (just that)—not the broader more important issue that could very well find it to be the topic of other threads occasionally.

Trying to prevent harm to a fetus with laws in such a way that it culminates on women losing certain freedoms of their body may very well be an important issue well worth pursuing, but it never occurred to me that was the issue at hand.

If the aim was to control women’s bodies, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now. The laws would further control woman’s bodies, but that is not the aim, target, or purpose. If we make the mistake of thinking it is, what else might come from these laws, I ask only on behalf of the original poster. List other ways we might can control the bodies of others, one might ask.

It’s been my endeavor (not to argue the more important issue you might have in mind) but to challenge the notion the question is founded on. I say the logic doesn’t work out for us to think laws would subsequently be passed to manifest in such ways as the intent or very purpose of the laws was to control females bodies.

I’ve spoken on the importance of separating the WHAT from the WHY before. If runners are given water at more frequent stops, can you guess WHY? Now, imagine this had an unwanted consequence of substantively more runners getting the hiccups. Someone, somewhere, is going to claim that the reason, purpose, and intentions of adding more water stops was to infact CAUSE more hiccups. That’s lunacy! Actually, it’s a distortion of what with why.

There’s an old saying that essentially conveys the mindset that if someone does something, then either he meant for the consequences or he was ignorant. Well, in this case, the law makers might very well accept that passing such laws would result in controlling (to some extent) women’s bodies, but for people to come along and twist things is all too common. People are looking for ways to prevent the killings—not control women—not to take choices away. It just happens (and this is what you might call a much more important issue) that these things would happen. Should we pass laws that have such results? The answer does not belong here, if the OP discussion is the priority topic for this thread.

Because it’s not the aim but rather an unfortunate consequence that women’s bodies will have more control by the government, it’s an unreasonable fear that government will suddenly look to ways to control other people’s bodies—very much because that’s not what they are seeking or have sought to do. No one wakes up, how can we control expectant mother’s. It’s how do we keep these would be mothers from killing. We may very well be in danger of the government looking to stop other ways people look to kill unborn babies.

The kidney example, no way. The motto in hiding is “don’t kill a fetus,” not “control women now and later men too.”

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Nobody should be forced to do anything because of an analogy. Analogies are meant to illustrate and explore various aspects of something. Abortion isn't simply about a woman's body and nothing else to those who believe the unborn is a person who is our moral equal. To them it is the weighing of her choice vs his/her life. Choosing death of another that you put into a life or death situation is rightly a moral issue.

It's fine to believe that an unborn person is a person who is your moral equal. I do not believe this. Why should your opinion be the one that counts?

I don't believe it either. But some people do. And it isn't just a matter of "controlling a woman's body" to them. It is a matter of killing somebody they consider to have a right to live. Shifting away from that to mere accusations of misogyny and that these people just want to control women, etc, doesn't help, because it ignores their actual perspective and position.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Nobody should be forced to do anything because of an analogy. Analogies are meant to illustrate and explore various aspects of something. Abortion isn't simply about a woman's body and nothing else to those who believe the unborn is a person who is our moral equal. To them it is the weighing of her choice vs his/her life. Choosing death of another that you put into a life or death situation is rightly a moral issue.

It's fine to believe that an unborn person is a person who is your moral equal. I do not believe this. Why should your opinion be the one that counts?

I don't believe it either. But some people do. And it isn't just a matter of "controlling a woman's body" to them. It is a matter of killing somebody they consider to have a right to live. Shifting away from that to mere accusations of misogyny and that these people just want to control women, etc, doesn't help, because it ignores their actual perspective and position.

Again, individuals are free to believe whatever magic they want to believe in. But they have no right to force their beliefs on others.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't believe it either. But some people do. And it isn't just a matter of "controlling a woman's body" to them.

Well, it is because they are telling a woman what they can and can't do with their body.

It is a matter of killing somebody they consider to have a right to live.

And we know this is a dubious argument because these same people are against birth control and sex education. This whole "sanctity of life" argument from them is a con job. They want to regulate sex. This isn't a mere accusation of misogyny... this is their end game.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You’re finding similarities between the two; I get that, but if the overarching primary goal is to not cause harm, then the difference lies there, not in the discovered similarities. If the purpose was to control people’s bodies, you’d have a point, but that’s not the intent. In both cases you mention, members of society would be forced against their will to do something, but why allow that to think we’re in danger of the latter happening since we’re in danger of the first happening—in light of the fact the goal is to not cause harm, not control bodies against peoples will?

Funny, because your calculus doesn't seem to take the harm of the woman into account. Sure, the pregnancy most likely wouldn't kill the woman, but it could. The pregnancy most certainly will cause some long-term, if not somewhat mild (women feel free to argue otherwise, I won't disagree) discomfort with certain organs. A woman can suffer from post-partum depression, with some depression lasting years, some being severe. This ignores all of the discomforts of pregnancy, ... the whole birthing thing..., weight displacement, back pain, sleep deprivation, sickness, etc...

...and we could go into the costs both in money and time of pregnancy as well, loss of standard of living (no drinking, need to avoid areas with smoking, other dietary changes).

Cause no harm huh? Why is it, so many men are pro-life? Is it because they were so oblivious to their own wives trials with pregnancy and birth, or are we talking about guys who are looking at pregnancy through the innocent eyes of a toddler and are completely and unabashedly ignorant of all things regarding pregnancy, but feel like they are somewhat of a moral authority on it?

You can’t get too wrapped up focusing on a more important issue when the issue at hand just happens to have lesser importance. If a black man spits in a cops face...

Again with bullshit analogies. A pregnant woman is not open to similes or metaphors, she is simply a pregnant woman.

Even if he’s being facetious, the underlying point is reminiscent of the slippery slope fallacy, as if the laws that would have allowed certain instances for “woman’s bodies to be controlled,” that it might not be long before it might happen to men as well. There’s a problem with that line of thinking, and I was addressing that (just that)—not the broader more important issue that could very well find it to be the topic of other threads occasionally.

Trying to prevent harm to a fetus with laws in such a way that it culminates on women losing certain freedoms of their body may very well be an important issue well worth pursuing, but it never occurred to me that was the issue at hand.

Are you living under a rock or just being argumentative?

If the aim was to control women’s bodies, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now. The laws would further control woman’s bodies, but that is not the aim, target, or purpose. If we make the mistake of thinking it is, what else might come from these laws, I ask only on behalf of the original poster. List other ways we might can control the bodies of others, one might ask.

Griswold v Connecticut... that's aim. Seriously, you seem to be nitpicking here. This wouldn't be about controlling their body, but influencing their entire life. Having a child is a pretty big deal.

It’s been my endeavor (not to argue the more important issue you might have in mind) but to challenge the notion the question is founded on. I say the logic doesn’t work out for us to think laws would subsequently be passed to manifest in such ways as the intent or very purpose of the laws was to control females bodies.

So you are just being argumentative then, so I'll stop wasting my time.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Toni]

How long until in vivo pregnancy becomes a thing of the past? Babies can be made in baby factories with sperm and eggs grown in vats. Testicle and ovary vats. Imagine that. It actually could be a thing one day. Then all humans can be infertile and women won't have to take any time away from work/leisure to have a baby. Then centuries later people will be amazed that humans actually used to come out of other humans. "What?" they will ask in shock. "Like Russian nesting dolls? That's crazy!"

Wasn't that a central plot in Brave New World?... No one had babies the "old fashioned way" anymore... and those who did were savages on the fringes of society.

Pretty much. And look how that turned out.

 

[Toni]

Nobody should be forced to do anything because of an analogy. Analogies are meant to illustrate and explore various aspects of something. Abortion isn't simply about a woman's body and nothing else to those who believe the unborn is a person who is our moral equal. To them it is the weighing of her choice vs his/her life. Choosing death of another that you put into a life or death situation is rightly a moral issue.

It's fine to believe that an unborn person is a person who is your moral equal. I do not believe this. Why should your opinion be the one that counts?

I don't believe it either. But some people do. And it isn't just a matter of "controlling a woman's body" to them. It is a matter of killing somebody they consider to have a right to live. Shifting away from that to mere accusations of misogyny and that these people just want to control women, etc, doesn't help, because it ignores their actual perspective and position.

It is true that for some people, abortion is a matter of killing an innocent human being who has the (God given) right to live. I actually have a lot of sympathy for that position and understand their zeal and why they feel that abortion clinics are very much like gas chambers during the Holocaust.

But there are plenty of other anti-abortion rights people who see pregnancy as a just punishment for a woman having sex with someone who doesn't want to marry her and/or raise the baby with her (with or without the as God planned aspect). That punishment is just because the woman is impure, whether the pregnancy resulted from rape or is threatening to the life or health of the mother. There is little care for the fate of any other of the woman's children who might exist and whose life would be in shambles without her. I mean: daddy can always marry a new and improved younger wife, right? And if there is no daddy? Well, what right do they have to (continue to) exist unless it is in the foster care system?

And there are those who are desperate to adopt---a perfect, perfectly healthy white baby and are genuinely anguished over not being able to have their own biological babies.

And there are those who have some disability or a family member with a disability, or even in some cases, someone who is gay or transgender or otherwise non-gender conforming who quite justifiably have qualms about abortion being used to 'eliminate' people like them or their loved ones for being 'different' or less than 'perfect.'

I really understand those concerns. People do not always have abortions for reasons that I personally consider to be 'good' reasons. People don't always have babies for reasons I consider to be 'good' reasons.

That doesn't change the fact that women are allowed to have control over their own bodies and to weigh the costs and benefits of continuing a pregnancy and making choices about how to live their lives.

Of the women I know who have told me about their abortions, they all did what they felt was their only choice at that time, in their circumstances. This included one very devout Catholic woman who, after her abortion, attended mass daily--and was absolutely certain she did the right thing to have an abortion.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This whole "sanctity of life" argument from them is a con job.

For some of them maybe, but so what if it is? That does not make the argument stand or fall. It does that on its own. If they argue for the right of the unborn to live (especially as it/he/she gets closer to birth), failing to address that to instead attack what you believe are dishonest motivations doesnt defeat the argument.

There are good arguments against their "right to life" position, but doing adhoms or questioning their motives isn't one of them.

 

[Toni]

This whole "sanctity of life" argument from them is a con job.

For some of them maybe, but so what if it is? That does not make the argument stand or fall. It does that on its own. If they argue for the right of the unborn to live (especially as it/he/she gets closer to birth), failing to address that to instead attack what you believe are dishonest motivations doesnt defeat the argument.

There are good arguments against their "right to life" position, but doing adhoms or questioning their motives isn't one of them.

Why must all possible arguments against abortions be satisfied in order for women to have the right to control their own bodies?

Why isn’t the standard that the argument against abortion must be so compelling that everyone agrees that the right is an embryo to exist and grow inside a woman’s body until it is developmentally ready to be born overrides a woman’s right to choose whether or not she carries the pregnancy to term?