The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[AndreusMaximus]

I have. Those videos illustrate the reality of the procedure, but they do not change my view on the morality of abortion.

Well, I'm honestly not sure what to say to this. You are actually the first pro-choice person I've met who has been willing to watch, or even consider, the gruesome details of a late term abortion. If you can really watch an innocent human baby, with a beating heart, capable of feeling pain, having her arms and legs literally ripped off while still alive, and not be moved at all in your position, then I doubt anything I say is going to get through to you.

If others insist on framing abortion as murder, they should have no issue accepting that criminalized abortion is forced birth.

Wrong.

If one starts from the premise that an unborn child is a human person with a right to life, then "murder" is the simplest logical term to use to describe it.

The flip side of that, is that if one starts from the premise that an unborn child has not more rights than any other random growth of cells in a woman's body, then describing abortion as a "medical procedure" is the simplest logical term.

However, if I were to describe laws permitting abortion as a "blood sacrifice to Satan", at that point I'm just twisting facts to try and come up with deliberately inflammatory rhetoric. True, there are some whacko Satanic cults out there who have used abortion as a ritual, and if one believes in Satan it's logical they would think abortion delights him. But it's simply not a fair characterization of the motivations or reasoning of >99% of the pro-abortion movement, and ultimately using this intentionally inflammatory rhetoric represents an unwillingness to engage the other side's argument with intellectual honesty.

Likewise, describing laws against abortion as "forced birth" is just intentionally inflammatory rhetoric. Nobody on the pro-life side wants to see women forced to get pregnant, or forced to give birth. If the only two options present are give birth or kill the baby, then saying it's wrong to kill the baby doesn't constitute "forced birth." If that were the case, then laws against child neglect could just as easily be called "forced enslavement" to the child, or laws against robbing a bank could be called "forced impoverishment."

 

[LeftyGunner]

So because we don't consider something a human being, we can ignore whether it consents or not? That sounds a lot like slavery logic to me.

Did you skip post 50, where I addressed this point, specifically?

here:

You lose me here. The unborn are human, even those that aren’t viable outside the womb yet.

and here:

Yes, I would have a problem considering runaways less than human.

I also have a problem with the analogy…I don’t view the unborn as less than human.

My argument does not hinge on dehumanizing the unborn, they hinge on a pregnant woman’s ability to violate the consent of her unborn…which I argue she cannot.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Did you skip post 50, where I addressed this point, specifically?

here:


and here:


My argument does not hinge on dehumanizing the unborn, they hinge on a pregnant woman’s ability to violate the consent of her unborn…which I argue she cannot.

I think the thing people are getting hung up on is that for most in this thread, when they say "human being" they mean a "human person with their own rights."

If I understand correctly, your opinion is that unborn children don't have their own rights, the mother has all the rights over them. So, you don't consider unborn to be a "human person with their own rights." That's what people mean when they portray your position as not believing the unborn are human beings, whereas you seem to be taking it as saying that they are accusing you of thinking unborn children are not organisms belonging to the species homo sapiens.

It's a terminology thing.

 

[Twangbanger]

We have had legal abortions for what? Two new generations.
nearly none of those generations have known the inside of a church.
so to me, it feels like a lost cause.

"We" have had legal abortions, somewhere and at some point in pregnancy, at every single time in American history. Legal abortion is not the new concept. "Life at Conception," on the other hand, is.

The Republican Party is undermining its ability to win elections over a legal concept which has never existed uniformly across the country - or for 50 years at any place in the country - at any time in our history as a nation.

 

[Twangbanger]

There’s a reason those freezing puppy videos/commercials are shown on TV by those animal rights people. When our parents saw black people in the south mauled by dogs and beaten by cops with their own eyes on TV that’s when real change in civil rights began. Abortion lovers know this and you’ll never see a child ripped apart in his/her mother’s womb because they know what would happen. I’ve often said if we could hear an aborted baby‘s screams, surely our hearts would be transformed.

If this is how we make decisions in this country, I hope you're prepared to become a Vegan.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Well, I'm honestly not sure what to say to this. You are actually the first pro-choice person I've met who has been willing to watch, or even consider, the gruesome details of a late term abortion. If you can really watch an innocent human baby, with a beating heart, capable of feeling pain, having her arms and legs literally ripped off while still alive, and not be moved at all in your position, then I doubt anything I say is going to get through to you.

Late-term abortions certainly seem barbaric, so I think it’s important to remember that both the child’s own mother and the mother’s doctor agreed that this procedure was appropriate for the circumstance.

I have never heard of a verifiable case of a late-term abortion that wasn’t performed to save the life of the mother or end the suffering of a fetus with severe birth defects.

Wrong.


If one starts from the premise that an unborn child is a human person with a right to life, then "murder" is the simplest logical term to use to describe it.

You have to be kidding, right? Calling abortion murder is every bit as rhetorically inflammatory as anything I have written.

A fetal right to life is a thoroughly modern concept not found in scripture or common law…it is not an appropriate starting point for our discussions at all.

 

[DadSmith]

If this is how we make decisions in this country, I hope you're prepared to become a Vegan.

Having compassion for baby's will make us Vegan?

 

[LeftyGunner]

I think the thing people are getting hung up on is that for most in this thread, when they say "human being" they mean a "human person with their own rights."

If I understand correctly, your opinion is that unborn children don't have their own rights, the mother has all the rights over them. So, you don't consider unborn to be a "human person with their own rights." That's what people mean when they portray your position as not believing the unborn are human beings, whereas you seem to be taking it as saying that they are accusing you of thinking unborn children are not organisms belonging to the species homo sapiens.

It's a terminology thing.

Okay, yeah…I see where you are coming from.

You are correct, I misunderstood how “human” was being framed for the purpose of our discussion.

I have heard others argue that abortion is not murder because the fetus hasn‘t developed enough to be considered “fully human yet”, or something. I don’t subscribe to that view at all..

I don’t think that the unborn are less than human, I think the rights of the unborn belong exclusively to the mother.

 

[Tombs]

Did you skip post 50, where I addressed this point, specifically?

here:


and here:


My argument does not hinge on dehumanizing the unborn, they hinge on a pregnant woman’s ability to violate the consent of her unborn…which I argue she cannot.

And my point is, a slave is your property and thus you are free to violate the consent of your property.

Tell me how that's any different morally.

 

[LeftyGunner]

And my point is, a slave is your property and thus you are free to violate the consent of your property.

Tell me how that's any different morally.

Tombs, I mean no disrespect by this but I don’t know how else to address your post.

You seem misunderstand the foundation of my point so much that I don’t know how to reframe it to properly answer your question.

Speaking only for myself and my personal perspectiv:

Regardless of the law, because of the violation of consent inherent in slavery no man can morally possess slaves.

By contrast:

Regardless of the law, because no mother can violate the consent of her unborn, no woman can immorally poses her own unborn child.

So long as it lives inside its mother, the rights of a fetus are an exercise of the mother’s own rights.

The moral difference is one of rightful possession…a slave owners claim to his slave is objectively unsupportable, a mothers claim to her unborn child is objectively undeniable.

I apologize if I am not making my point clearly enough.

 

[Ingomike]

Tombs, I mean no disrespect by this but I don’t know how else to address your post.

You seem misunderstand the foundation of my point so much that I don’t know how to reframe it to properly answer your question.

Speaking only for myself and my personal perspectiv:

Regardless of the law, because of the violation of consent inherent in slavery no man can morally possess slaves.

By contrast:

Regardless of the law, because no mother can violate the consent of her unborn, no woman can immorally poses her own unborn child.

So long as it lives inside its mother, the rights of a fetus are an exercise of the mother’s own rights.

The moral difference is one of rightful possession…a slave owners claim to his slave is objectively unsupportable, a mothers claim to her unborn child is objectively undeniable.

I apologize if I am not making my point clearly enough.

How do you square your thinking when criminals are charged with two counts of murder of both the mother and unborn baby?

 

[Twangbanger]

Having compassion for baby's will make us Vegan?

No. But making law based on what "feels pain" or makes you squeamish will. There is either a logical argument to be made for Life at Conception, or there isn't. But if all you need to prove is that something feels pain, to outlaw it...get ready to stock up on Veggie Burgers.

 

[Tombs]

Tombs, I mean no disrespect by this but I don’t know how else to address your post.

You seem misunderstand the foundation of my point so much that I don’t know how to reframe it to properly answer your question.

Speaking only for myself and my personal perspectiv:

Regardless of the law, because of the violation of consent inherent in slavery no man can morally possess slaves.

By contrast:

Regardless of the law, because no mother can violate the consent of her unborn, no woman can immorally poses her own unborn child.

So long as it lives inside its mother, the rights of a fetus are an exercise of the mother’s own rights.

The moral difference is one of rightful possession…a slave owners claim to his slave is objectively unsupportable, a mothers claim to her unborn child is objectively undeniable.

I apologize if I am not making my point clearly enough.

The issue here is the use of the phrase objectively. You aren't establishing an objective basis but a subjective one.
The same argument can be made to claim moral authority to possess another person as a slave.

I mean, you can even switch words in your statement and it still makes complete sense when translated to slavery.

"a mans claim to his property is objectively undeniable."
"no man can immorally poses his own property."

This is why I don't like that argument.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Late-term abortions certainly seem barbaric, so I think it’s important to remember that both the child’s own mother and the mother’s doctor agreed that this procedure was appropriate for the circumstance.

I have never heard of a verifiable case of a late-term abortion that wasn’t performed to save the life of the mother or end the suffering of a fetus with severe birth defects.

You've never heard of one, because the media doesn't like to talk about them. But the truth is that any study I've every seen on the subject indicates that even among late-term abortions, the majority are performed for purely elective reasons. Furthermore, among those done for "health" reasons, many are done for conditions like Down Syndrome, which far from being a severe birth defect, is a completely survivable condition that most often still allows a child to live a happy, full life.

Even without the studies, though, it's obvious that this is the case, otherwise the pro-abortion movement wouldn't be so vehemently opposed to laws that outlaw late-term abortions except for health reasons.

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

Fetal diagnostic indications for second and third trimester outpatient pregnancy termination - PubMed

The majority of diagnoses were in the categories of genetic disorder and neurologic abnormality.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45161.pdf

These are all direct links to studies done on the subject, the first one by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion group, so hard to accuse them of bias.

If you prefer an easy-to-digest summary of the numbers, I couldn't find any from a pro-abortion source that actually talks about numbers and statistics (gee, I wonder why?) so you'll have to settle for one from a pro-life source. They back up all their numbers with links to scientific studies, though, so if you're going to accuse them of bias or fudging the numbers, I'd really like to see your source for statistics.

The Reality of Late-Term Abortion Procedures - Lozier Institute

Of interest to the medical, moral, sociological, and political issues surrounding late-term abortion is the question of why women seek abortion after twenty weeks gestation. Any data considered to answer this question must be examined carefully for limitations. However, a greater understanding...

lozierinstitute.org

You have to be kidding, right? Calling abortion murder is every bit as rhetorically inflammatory as anything I have written.

A fetal right to life is a thoroughly modern concept not found in scripture or common law…it is not an appropriate starting point for our discussions at all.

The difference is that it makes logical sense from the pro-life perspective. "Forced birth" doesn't make logical sense even from the pro-abortion standpoint.

Yes, the term "murder" can sound inflammatory, which is why I don't insist on calling your side the "pro-murder" movement for the sake of this conversation. But if asked what my position is, how can I describe abortion as anything but murder? You would admit that IF you believed in a fetal right to life, then "murder" would be the logical term to apply, right?

On the other hand, "forced birth" doesn't make sense as a phrase, because birth is simply the normal, natural, "default" course for a healthy, functioning body of the pregnant woman. Nobody's standing there with a gun to the woman's head saying "give birth, or else." You can't "force" a woman's body to give birth any more than you can force her body to grow, or digest food, or heal wounds. Just stop and think for a moment; if making it illegal to end a human life constitutes "forcing" the alternative on people, what other things would you describe as "forced"? If it's illegal for me to kill my brother, is that "forced siblinghood"? Or, if it's illegal for a doctor to amputate a healthy limb for me, is that "forced limb-growing"?

 

[LeftyGunner]

The issue here is the use of the phrase objectively. You aren't establishing an objective basis but a subjective one.

Incorrect. You misunderstand. The defining difference is consent…a slave is being denied their ability to consent…a fetus has no such ability at all.

There is nothing subjective about this distinction.

The same argument can be made to claim moral authority to possess another person as a slave.

No, you cannot.

Again…slavery does not exist without violating consent. Motherhood most certainly does.

I mean, you can even switch words in your statement and it still makes complete sense when translated to slavery.

"a mans claim to his property is objectively undeniable."
"no man can immorally poses his own property."

No, you really can’t…not without ignoring the core of my argument…

Slaves don’t actually belong to their master, but the unborn really do belong to their mothers…that’s the key difference here.

Slaves aren’t actually property…they are people who can express their own agency, but are denied that right by others…they are prisoners being held against their will…a clear violation of consent. There is no moral way for a slave owner to posses slaves.

By contrast, a fetus has no agency to begin with...a mother unquestionably has complete agency over her unborn. There is no immoral way for a woman to posses her own unborn…it’s rights, it’s agency, is purely an extension of it’s mother,

This is why I don't like that argument.

Respectfully You don’t appear to understand the argument. I don’t mean this as a dig at you, I don’t think I am communicating my point very effectively here.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Incorrect. You misunderstand. The defining difference is consent…a slave is being denied their ability to consent…a fetus has no such ability at all.

There is nothing subjective about this distinction.



No, you cannot.

Again…slavery does not exist without violating consent. Motherhood most certainly does.




No, you really can’t…not without ignoring the core of my argument…

Slaves don’t actually belong to their master, but the unborn really do belong to their mothers…that’s the key difference here.

Slaves aren’t actually property, though…they people who can express their own agency, but are denied that right by others…they are prisoners being held against their will…a clear violation of consent. There is no moral way for a slave owner to posses slaves without denying their agency.

By contrast, a fetus has no agency to begin with...a mother unquestionably has complete agency over her unborn. There is no immoral way for a woman to posses her own unborn…it’s rights, it’s agency, is purely an extension of it’s mother,



You don’t appear to understand the argument.

I don't see any argument being made. You're just stating a position, calling it "unquestionable", and then say that anyone who disagrees doesn't understand it.

There is nothing "objective" or "unquestionable" about your claim that a fetus has no rights, and is 100% the property of the mother. Tombs' point is that, to a pro-life person who does believe in an unborn right to life, this sounds no different than it would to claim that it is "objective" or "unquestionable" that black people have no right to freedom.

What's more, I'm not entirely sure that you are even willing to take your claim to its logical conclusion. I have to imagine that even you don't truly believe that an unborn child has absolutely no rights whatsoever, and that the mother has 100% freedom to do absolutely anything she wants with the fetus with no consideration at all for the fetus' future life or potential.

To illustrate, let me give the most extreme possible hypothetical I can think up (I'm not trying to be inflammatory, or misrepresent your position, I'm just trying to establish some common ground to work from.) Let's say, for whatever reason, a mother decided she wanted a child with no fingers. So she asks the doctor to do a C-section, but moments before removing the child from her body, please cut off all the fingers. Or say she lives in a culture where genital mutilation is popular; can she ask a doctor to attempt such a thing with the child still in utero, and be morally okay to do so? Or say she wants her male baby castrated, and finds a doctor with the ability to do that in utero?

I have to imagine you would agree that the above examples would be wrong for the mother/doctor to attempt, right? But I'm curious how you square that with your belief that a mother has 100% agency over her unborn child, and can do anything she wishes without regard to the consequences or future potential of the fetus.

 

[DadSmith]

Incorrect. You misunderstand. The defining difference is consent…a slave is being denied their ability to consent…a fetus has no such ability at all.

Okay so as long as people aren't old enough to give permission, or the ability to we can make them slaves. Is what you just said.

At what age is a person old enough to give permission? What if we keep them uneducated, and not knowing they have a choice?

The point you made is we can still make slaves just as long as they aren't able to give their permission.

 

[LeftyGunner]

I don't see any argument being made. You're just stating a position, calling it "unquestionable", and then say that anyone who disagrees doesn't understand it.

Um, ok.

There is nothing "objective" or "unquestionable" about your claim that a fetus has no rights, and is 100% the property of the mother. Tombs' point is that, to a pro-life person who does believe in an unborn right to life, this sounds no different than it would to claim that it is "objective" or "unquestionable" that black people have no right to freedom.

You have built a straw man here, whether you meant to or not.

What I am claiming is objective or undeniable is the fact that a fetus has no ability to consent.

You cannot deny agency to that which cannot posses it.

I make this point to contrast the difference between a fetus and a slave, which is the point Tombs was making.

A slave has the ability to choose for itself…to consent…but is artificially denied this right by others in no moral position to take them away.

The difference is not subjective. One group is denied agency, the other doesn’t have agency to begin with.

What's more, I'm not entirely sure that you are even willing to take your claim to its logical conclusion. I have to imagine that even you don't truly believe that an unborn child has absolutely no rights whatsoever, and that the mother has 100% freedom to do absolutely anything she wants with the fetus with no consideration at all for the fetus' future life or potential.

To illustrate, let me give the most extreme possible hypothetical I can think up (I'm not trying to be inflammatory, or misrepresent your position, I'm just trying to establish some common ground to work from.) Let's say, for whatever reason, a mother decided she wanted a child with no fingers. So she asks the doctor to do a C-section, but moments before removing the child from her body, please cut off all the fingers. Or say she lives in a culture where genital mutilation is popular; can she ask a doctor to attempt such a thing with the child still in utero, and be morally okay to do so? Or say she wants her male baby castrated, and finds a doctor with the ability to do that in utero?

I mean…I don’t think it’s the government stopping this from happening now.

Your example is patently absurd…a mother who want to mutilate, then bear her child…a doctor who is willing to go along with her wishes...it strains credulity, for sure.

You do expose a flaw in my argument, though…it’s black and white. Any black and white argument is open to an attack by appeal to absurdity.

To be intellectually consistent, my position would have to allow for it, regardless of how likely I think it is.

It is not dissimilar to people who want a total abortion ban, the position necessarily allows the government to force a ten year old to carry her incest rape baby to term in the name of “protecting the innocent”.

I have to imagine you would agree that the above examples would be wrong for the mother/doctor to attempt, right? But I'm curious how you square that with your belief that a mother has 100% agency over her unborn child, and can do anything she wishes without regard to the consequences or future potential of the fetus.

I would argue that a woman has a right to mutilate herself, right up to the point of death…if that is what she wants. She has agency. I would argue that agency extends to her unborn up to the moment of birth.

I would not argue that she can do so without regard to the consequences…she is the one who will have to raise her own mutilated child (going back to your example here), and explain to them why their life is so much different from the lives of other children they meet.

I mean…it really isn’t any different than women who use drugs during pregnancy. It’s her choice, but it doesn’t come without consequence.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Okay so as long as people aren't old enough to give permission, or the ability to we can make them slaves. Is what you just said.

Erm…no. The key difference is one person living inside another person’s body.

At what age is a person old enough to give permission? What if we keep them uneducated, and not knowing they have a choice?

It isn’t a matter of age, it is a matter of agency. The only person in a position to act in the interest of a fetus prior to birth is the mother. Following birth, there are any number of people who can intervene on behalf of the child, even if it goes against the mother’s wishes.

The point you made is we can still make slaves just as long as they aren't able to give their permission.

By my definition we can only make slaves of other people who live inside us.

 

[DadSmith]

By my definition we can only make slaves of other people who live inside us.

Disagree with you. By your standards we can make slaves of anyone who doesn't know enough to give consent to be a slave.
Be it too young or just dumb.