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

[Toni]

The 'giving women control over their own bodies' argument in favour of allowing abortion is not the best or most reliable argument, imo, of itself and on its own. It can be part of a more sophisticated case, yes. For example, it could be (and often is) that women are given control over what happens to the fetus in their bodies, up to a certain stage of development, barring exceptional circumstances (when that time limit may be exceeded). Which imo they obviously should be (given that control).

The question of when the developing entity changes from being part of the woman to something distinctly not part of her (even if still inside her) is not easy to answer. In one way, it's 'part of her' until it is born, but it could equally be said that it is merely 'in her'. Another option is that she and the fetus are a shared system.

No.

I understand that you (and some other people, often male people) reject the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Her own personal needs and wants should be made subordinate to the needs of an innocent developing fetus (most morally acceptable) or, more obscurely, to the needs and wants of a man, a family, or society.

This, in many respects, is not different than the notion that at least some women must be made available, willing or not, to satisfy the needs of (some) men for sexual gratification. Or to cook, clean, bring coffee, sort mail, provide ‘menial and therefore poorly compensated labor for men who are made for better things.

Any person deserves to have autonomy and control over their own body. No one should be compelled to do so much as donate blood, much less cede their entire body and health and education and career and personal development to serve the needs of any other being unless it is their express desire to do so.

I am not familiar with the abortion laws in other countries but in the US, it was established that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy up until the point of viability of the fetus, after which that right MAY be restricted to certain circumstances such as the life and health of the woman.

I think you must be answering a point made by someone else, not me.

I should have highlighted the first sentence of your post. That is what I was responding to.

Except for some religious (not all) people who believe that abortion is a sin/murder, and those who desperately want to have a child but have never been able to achieve or maintain a pregnancy, almost every argument against allowing women autonomy over whether to become or remain pregnant have to do with whether women should be allow d autonomy over their own bodies in other areas. It isn’t uncommon for those who are opposed to abortion to be in favor of some form of legalized prostitution, or of maintaining workplace cultures and policies that make it difficult to be a pregnant or new mother, that insist that women’s wages are lower because the silly things want to do something stupid like have babies or, having had a baby that is not wanted by the father should have no right to expect any kind of material support from the father and by the way, she’s probably lying about the paternity anyway. And that they just have babies to collect welfare instead of holding full time jobs like normal (male) people although without adequate affordable and accessible childcare available, as well as supportive policies in place, it is extremely difficult to do just that.

I really zen those are not your specific attitudes but deciding that a woman does not have the absolute right to choose whether or not to serve as an incubator to a child she does not wish to carry is very much like all of the (non-exhaustive) controls ive listed—as well serving, logically, to extend this coercion to the general population (including males) to becoming an organ donor.


Edited to add: super busy at the moment so I don’t think I did a good job of explaining that I am talking generalities, not you specifically.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Abortion is the killing of something/someone. There are plenty of arguments to justify that killing (it isn't sentient; it is self defence; etc), but simply ignoring the killing and implying evil intention onto those who seek to protect from it isn't going to win the debate.

Who is ignoring the killing? The problem is you are attaching importance to an act which generally has none. We only care about killing if the thing being killed is rare, or if the thing being killed is reasonably intelligent and not a farm animal.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Who is ignoring the killing?

Anyone who says abortion is ONLY about a woman's control of her body, as we saw happen above.

The problem is you are attaching importance to an act which generally has none. We only care about killing if the thing being killed is rare, or if the thing being killed is reasonably intelligent and not a farm animal.

Some people do object to killing farm animals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who is ignoring the killing?

Anyone who says abortion is ONLY about a woman's control of her body, as we saw happen above.

That's not ignoring it, that's not attaching importance to it.

The problem is you are attaching importance to an act which generally has none. We only care about killing if the thing being killed is rare, or if the thing being killed is reasonably intelligent and not a farm animal.

Some people do object to killing farm animals.

A small number, yes.

A simple example: After posting message #62 I went downstairs and found my wife killing a "chicken". Somehow I don't think our radioactive poster would be upset at her cooking an egg.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That's not ignoring it, that's not attaching importance to it.

It's both if the "right to the life of the unborn" is the argument made against them. A simple "I don't care about that life" would be a more honest response, and would be acknowledging the argument faced. Instead going on about a woman's control over her body as if that's the only point that's been raised isn't quite the same. The people talking about unborn life being important to save may just actually hold that view.

 

[Harry Bosch]

That's not ignoring it, that's not attaching importance to it.

It's both if the "right to the life of the unborn" is the argument made against them. A simple "I don't care about that life" would be a more honest response, and would be acknowledging the argument faced. Instead going on about a woman's control over her body as if that's the only point that's been raised isn't quite the same. The people talking about unborn life being important to save may just actually hold that view.

Most of the pro-life people don't really care about saving the "unborn life"! They care about forcing their religious views on others. If they really cared, do they attempt to adopt practices which reduce abortion? Do they promote health education, safe sex practices, empowering young women, and etc.

 

[laughing dog]

I have mentioned things such as biology, the biology of human reproduction, embryonic development and I will add developmental biology, anatomy and physiology and the list could go on.

I could hand waive just as well mentioning various other areas of science. What you have not done is actually tell us why it isn't possible....

All you have done is handwave and say it will be possible in the future. Why the hell should anyone address such a fantastic claim?

Add in that you claim all that biology is chemistry and physics, which suggests you know very little about chemistry, physics and biology, and why should anyone take your responses seriously?

 

[Ford]

That's not ignoring it, that's not attaching importance to it.

It's both if the "right to the life of the unborn" is the argument made against them. A simple "I don't care about that life" would be a more honest response, and would be acknowledging the argument faced. Instead going on about a woman's control over her body as if that's the only point that's been raised isn't quite the same. The people talking about unborn life being important to save may just actually hold that view.

Most of the pro-life people don't really care about saving the "unborn life"! They care about forcing their religious views on others. If they really cared, do they attempt to adopt practices which reduce abortion? Do they promote health education, safe sex practices, empowering young women, and etc.

A lot of these folks think women should be subservient...young women doubly so. Safe sex? Sex is only meant for procreation, and so any attempt to make it "safe" goes against "god's will." Health education? These are people who think if you pray hard enough, you'll stop being gay. That a 12 year old girl who gets raped by her uncle was somehow "asking for it" and should have to suffer the consequences of her "sin."

 

[Toni]

Most of the pro-life people don't really care about saving the "unborn life"! They care about forcing their religious views on others. If they really cared, do they attempt to adopt practices which reduce abortion? Do they promote health education, safe sex practices, empowering young women, and etc.

A lot of these folks think women should be subservient...young women doubly so. Safe sex? Sex is only meant for procreation, and so any attempt to make it "safe" goes against "god's will." Health education? These are people who think if you pray hard enough, you'll stop being gay. That a 12 year old girl who gets raped by her uncle was somehow "asking for it" and should have to suffer the consequences of her "sin."

Most of the Catholics I know are in favor of birth control and a little more conflicted about abortion.

The 12 year old rape victim should view the baby as proof that good things should come out of even terrible circumstances. And then give the baby up for adoption to a nice Christian couple. (Not the view of Catholics I know—southern baptists? Yep.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Most of the pro-life people don't really care about saving the "unborn life"!

But that's irrelevant to their argument, and purely adhom. It doesn't matter if they make the argument in good faith or not. It is the argument itself that must stand or fall on its own merits or lack thereof. Plus, you said "most" of them for good reason. You know there are some who do take this view genuinely for their stated argument.

 

[Toni]

Most of the pro-life people don't really care about saving the "unborn life"!

But that's irrelevant to their argument, and purely adhom. It doesn't matter if they make the argument in good faith or not. It is the argument itself that must stand or fall on its own merits or lack thereof. Plus, you said "most" of them for good reason. You know there are some who do take this view genuinely for their stated argument.

The fact that many/most of the pro-life crowd do not support providing excellent affordable (perhaps free) health care for mother and child before and after the birth, childcare, and other support services makes it seem as though their arguments: It's all part of God's plan! and Every life is precious! are less than sincere.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Most of the pro-life people don't really care about saving the "unborn life"!

But that's irrelevant to their argument, and purely adhom. It doesn't matter if they make the argument in good faith or not. It is the argument itself that must stand or fall on its own merits or lack thereof. Plus, you said "most" of them for good reason. You know there are some who do take this view genuinely for their stated argument.

The fact that many/most of the pro-life crowd do not support providing excellent affordable (perhaps free) health care for mother and child before and after the birth, childcare, and other support services makes it seem as though their arguments: It's all part of God's plan! and Every life is precious! are less than sincere.

You could say the same of them opposing murder yet not supporting universal health care, or about them opposing petty theft yet not supporting universal basic income for those who will otherwise become desperate thieves. You could also say the same of your own support of a woman's right to control her body, yet opposition to legalized prostitution. A lot of things look inconsistent at surface view, and perhaps are. Cognitive dissonance is also a thing.

None of that speaks to the actual "right to life" argument though. It should stand or fall on its own merits regardless of who champions it or why.

 

[SimpleDon]

I hate to point out the obvious: but liberals have lost the supreme court. It's over. 8 years of Bush and potentially 8 years of Trump has sealed this fate. However, maybe there could be some good things to come out of the draconian laws that are coming? I thought of a few:

1. No more people dying on the Organ Transplant waiting lists. The great new heart beat laws coming from the south mean that women must cede control of their bodies to the government. Well, does this not also apply also to men? Therefore, if people can survive with one kidney, all people who can donate should be forced to do so. Person needs a kidney, the government could find the closest compatible person available at the cheapest price, then bam - do that surgery. Problem solved. Same thing with livers. We know that most kids can survive with half a liver when they are young (the full liver will grow back). Therefore, we should immediately start harvesting livers for older people who need them. This is exciting stuff.

2 If government can force a woman to carry a fetus to term, could government not force women to have abortions? In other words, maybe the government could enforce lower population for forcing abortions? China did this to great effect.

I'd like to hear more great things that could come out of this great expansion of government power over the individual.

Somewhat at random.

The decriminalization of abortion was meant to solve a public health problem, too many women were dying from botched illegal abortions. The South was largely supportive of the decriminalization of abortion, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a statement of support for it. One of the states that had decriminalized abortion was Kansas.

Lee Atwater, one of the architects of the Republican's Southern Strategy, worried that the Republicans would run out of wedge issues to keep conservatives voting to disadvantage themselves economically, that is, voting to suppress their own wages to increase profits. He was right to worry. They have worn out and lost school integration, urban riots, Black crime in the streets, welfare queens, draft dodging, school busing, flag burning, crack cocaine, illegitimate births, intermarriage of the races, ACORN, the imminent break up of the family, peeping toms pretending to be transgender, BLM, etc. as wedge issues. Gay marriage and the vilification of homosexuals have about run their full course to widespread acceptance. ObamaCare has backfired on them. About all that they have now is xenophobia, the threat against memorials to the traitors in the civil war, the liberal media who insist on reporting facts, one of our favorites here - reverse racism in the acceptance to elite universities and professional schools, blatant racism, and, of course, abortion. But abortion has always been their number one wedge issue, cementing some Catholics in their voting block. The loss of abortion as a wedge issue will be a blow for the Republicans and their election chances.

Roe v. Wade was decided on the rather obvious conclusion that the Bill of Rights and the provisions covering property rights in the US Constitution taken as a whole add up to a right to privacy constraining the government from acting against the individual. If this right doesn't now exist between a doctor and his patient, where does it exist?

To keep the issue hot and conservatives voting to increase income inequality in the country, they had ramped up the rhetoric against abortion to where it is murdering a child and contraception, the only practical way to cut down on the number of abortions, is also an abortion, and, by extension, also the murder of a child. But if both are the murder of a child then it is premeditated murder and the pregnant woman and the woman who doesn't want to get pregnant are a party to the crime and should be punished as such. This is too far to go and I am not advocating this, I am just pointing out that this is too far for the most rabid supporters of criminalizing abortion are willing to go, which means that they don't really consider it to be a murder of a child. The same is true of the fact that they allow the murder of the child up to the eighth week. No one is going to gain any credit for pointing out conservatives' contradictions, without logical contradictions they wouldn't have any ideology, but matters of law can't be so ungrounded.

If abortion isn't the murder of a child what is it that requires the state to come between a doctor and his patient. Obviously, at some point, the fetus does become a child who is owed the protection of the state and this point is universally agreed to be before birth among reasonable people. But now we are back to the question that the US Supreme Court wrestled with in 1973, when is this point? There is a very good argument for making this point as far into the term of the pregnancy as possible so that the woman doesn't have to rush her decision. The longer that she goes into the pregnancy the more likely she is to keep the baby. I don't have an answer to this. I would be happy to live with the current status of Roe v. Wade. Or any decision that the current court can come up with eight votes for as the court came up with to decide Roe v. Wade.