America transitions into Gilead

[The_Animus]

I don't want to speak for all pro-life people, but since this discussion frequently gets dominated by religious people against atheists I feel compelled to. I'm a gay, atheist, pro-life, man (judge me as you will).

It's not even that the "right(s) of the fetus under consideration is more significant than the right of the woman", rather that I'm judging the quality of one right to another. The right to life of one individual will always outweigh the right to convenience of another. The vast majority of abortions in the developed world are those of convenience. Those that aren't can be easily classified into those that involve biological necessity (i.e. woman's compromised health, deformity of birth, etc.), and those that involve psychological necessity ("I was raped!", "Dad is no longer in the picture!", "What will my family think!?", etc.) While I sympathize with those of the latter category, I cannot in good faith support their desire to murder their offspring.

Being atheist your belief isn't religious or soul based.

Are you vegan? If not, can you explain why terminating the previously described clump of unformed cells is murder but terminating a fully formed living thing is okay?

 

[Minoosh]

I don't know how you can imprison doctors but not go after the person who put a hit on the fetus.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

Being atheist your belief isn't religious or soul based.

Are you vegan? If not, can you explain why terminating the previously described clump of unformed cells is murder but terminating a fully formed living thing is okay?

No I am not a vegan. Just because I don't believe in a god doesn't mean I believe that all animal species are worthy of moral consideration, or even the same moral consideration as individuals who moralize like me (a human). Call me a speciesist as you want but I firmly believe that H. Sapiens is in a category of moral consideration outside of all other species, and we must include all members of this species including those who are "developmentally challenged", be them fetuses or the mentally retarded.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Isn't there also an argument path for ensuring that each human gets the best possible world we can give them? Being born unwanted, unloved and uncared for is better than not being born at all?

 

[Puppycow]

Okay, I'll be satisfied with the conclusion that some experts disagree on whether women can be prosecuted under this law. I tend to weight the opinion of the Planned Parenthood spokesperson fairly high, but I don't know her position offhand.

I think that when there are controversies over the consequences of the law and the primary literal intention is bad enough, we should focus on how the primary literal intention is bad rather than on how much worse it might be if some people are right.

You're right though: the hyperbole is a distraction from what we should really be focusing on, which is that this law will severely restrict access to abortion if allowed to stand. Even if it only applies to doctors. The scaremongering could actually be counterproductive here for opponents of the law, of which I count myself one.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't want to speak for all pro-life people, but since this discussion frequently gets dominated by religious people against atheists I feel compelled to. I'm a gay, atheist, pro-life, man (judge me as you will).

It's not even that the "right(s) of the fetus under consideration is more significant than the right of the woman", rather that I'm judging the quality of one right to another. The right to life of one individual will always outweigh the right to convenience of another. The vast majority of abortions in the developed world are those of convenience. Those that aren't can be easily classified into those that involve biological necessity (i.e. woman's compromised health, deformity of birth, etc.), and those that involve psychological necessity ("I was raped!", "Dad is no longer in the picture!", "What will my family think!?", etc.) While I sympathize with those of the latter category, I cannot in good faith support their desire to murder their offspring.

No one is asking you to support it. But you have no standing to make that choice for another person. Will you raise an unwanted child who is the result of rape at your own expense if its mother comes to your door and says "here, this child is your problem now"?

 

[Shalamar]

I don't want to speak for all pro-life people, but since this discussion frequently gets dominated by religious people against atheists I feel compelled to. I'm a gay, atheist, pro-life, man (judge me as you will).

It's not even that the "right(s) of the fetus under consideration is more significant than the right of the woman", rather that I'm judging the quality of one right to another. The right to life of one individual will always outweigh the right to convenience of another. The vast majority of abortions in the developed world are those of convenience. Those that aren't can be easily classified into those that involve biological necessity (i.e. woman's compromised health, deformity of birth, etc.), and those that involve psychological necessity ("I was raped!", "Dad is no longer in the picture!", "What will my family think!?", etc.) While I sympathize with those of the latter category, I cannot in good faith support their desire to murder their offspring.

At what point should a woman lose the rights over her own health, and reproduction?

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

No one is asking you to support it. But you have no standing to make that choice for another person.

I have the obligation to stand up for the right of that other person to live. That's my duty as a moral being.

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker was speaking in broad terms, not about threats from just the law. He seems to view sex as rather more dangerous than I do. One of us (or both[1]) may be doing it wrong.

[1] Separately, not jointly.

Yeah, the comment probably didn't make much sense to a lot of people, and it certainly isn't all that relevant to the discussion. I was just struck by the interesting idea that the riskiest element of having sex was that there might be a law against aborting the resulting offspring. Between pregnancy, death during childbirth, the possibility of marriage and children, and the inherent risk of being naked and alone with a man and no witnesses, sex sounds pretty risky even before you throw this law into the mix.


(And I really had heard that song I mentioned for the first time in it must be about 25 years, so it was fresh in my memory. Kipling was an interesting fellow. I suppose he isn't studied as much now as when I was in school. Both racist and sexist, to be sure, and so homophobic that he never even mentioned the possibility. And yet, there's a certain realism to his poems.)


But, to reiterate the main point, these laws really are a threat to the way we live today. If you believe a woman should have the right to abortion, now is the time to write your state legislator or do whatever other actions might help preserve that right. However, whether your audience is state senator, or your neighbor, you'll be taken more seriously if you don't sound like a raving lunatic when you talk about pending legislation. Just leave the "death penalty" talk out of it. Most of those legislators are lawyers. They can figure out what the laws actually say.

 

[Trebuchet]

Birth. Her own.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

At what point should a woman lose the rights over her own health, and reproduction?

A woman (or any other person for that matter) does not lose her rights to choose what to do with her own healthcare.

Her right to bodily autonomy does not grant her the right to kill another human being without just cause.

 

[Trebuchet]

Birth. Her own.

That was meant as a reply to "at what point should a woman lose all rights?", of course.

 

[Shalamar]

A woman (or any other person for that matter) does not lose her rights to choose what to do with her own healthcare.

Her right to bodily autonomy does not grant her the right to kill another human being without just cause.

However, your claims that she should not be able to abort, does indeed strip her of rights over her own healthcare, and bodily autonomy.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

However, your claims that she should not be able to abort, does indeed strip her of rights over her own healthcare, and bodily autonomy.

It strips her of her "right" to kill the human being gestating inside her.

 

[Shalamar]

It strips her of her "right" to kill the human being gestating inside her.

Which, until viable, is essentially a parasite, and a part of her body. You want to strip her rights, and freedoms.

Someone out there is in desperate need of a transplant that you could provide. They will die without a transplant. We'll take one of your organs. There are a couple you can spare. You wouldn't want to deny someone life, would you?

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

Which, until viable, is essentially a parasite, and a part of her body.

Allow me to put the 'E' in the (former) JREF:

Parasites are organisms of one species that take advantage of the individual of another species in resource acquisition. Zygotes/fetuses/et.al. are not parasites since they are of the same species of the so-called "host". Indeed, they're not only the same species but they share 50% of the DNA as they're the... wait for it... OFFSPRING of the "host". There isn't a biologist worth her salt who would ever refer to the mitotic cell reproduction of a bacterium as a "parasite", nor would she say that of a germinated fruit developing into a new tree. Offspring =/= parasites. Ergo, human zygotes/fetuses are not parasites.

Someone out there is in desperate need of a transplant that you could provide. They will die without a transplant. We'll take one of your organs. There are a couple you can spare. You wouldn't want to deny someone life, would you?

Like most pro-choicers you completely miss the point. It's not that life is being denied, rather that life is actively being snuffed out. The truly analogous situation you should've cited was one of a potential transplant patient waiting for a transplant and because I'm not willing to give them my, say, kidney, I pull out a gun a shoot them in the head. Actively choosing to kill a gestating human without any moral justification is murder.

 

[Shalamar]

Allow me to put the 'E' in the (former) JREF:

Parasites are organisms of one species that take advantage of the individual of another species in resource acquisition. Zygotes/fetuses/et.al. are not parasites since they are of the same species of the so-called "host". Indeed, they're not only the same species but they share 50% of the DNA as they're the... wait for it... OFFSPRING of the "host". There isn't a biologist worth her salt who would ever refer to the mitotic cell reproduction of a bacterium as a "parasite", nor would she say that of a germinated fruit developing into a new tree. Offspring =/= parasites. Ergo, human zygotes/fetuses are not parasites.

For a number of intents and purposes, it may as well be. Moreso if it is unwanted, or could cause active harm to the woman.

Like most pro-choicers you completely miss the point. It's not that life is being denied, rather that life is actively being snuffed out. The truly analogous situation you should've cited was one of a potential transplant patient waiting for a transplant and because I'm not willing to give them my, say, kidney, I pull out a gun a shoot them in the head. Actively choosing to kill a gestating human without any moral justification is murder.

Like most forced-birth advocates, you are also missing the point. You want to actively DENY the rights and freedoms a person would otherwise enjoy. You would deny life from another person, citing your freedoms, but deny a woman the ability to abort a fetus that in all likelyhood isn't any bigger than a fingertip.

There are many other ways to reduce the rate of abortions that do not strip rights and freedoms from a person. Which is why I'm pro-choice, personal feelings aside. It SHOULD only ever be a decision between the woman, and her doctor.

 

[Puppycow]

I have the obligation to stand up for the right of that other person to live. That's my duty as a moral being.

And will you pay her hospital bill and the cost of all her doctor's visits? And take responsibility for raising the child once it's born?

 

[Minoosh]

Isn't there also an argument path for ensuring that each human gets the best possible world we can give them? Being born unwanted, unloved and uncared for is better than not being born at all?

This. Babies have a right to be wanted. So if a woman wants to end a pregnancy, so be it. It's true that a fertilized egg contains the genetic blueprint of a unique individual (identical twins excepted), but that's a very inclusive definition of personhood.

A couple of years ago a caller to the Dave Ramsey Show asked about going into debt for IVF. A lot of people who listen to the show are evangelical Christians. Some have gone through a few hoops to justify creating more than one zygote. Someone quoted the Bible (OT, Jeremiah) which basically says, "I knew you in your mother's womb." (Translations vary.) Someone on a blog opined that because the zygotes were not formed in the womb, fertilizing extra eggs in a Petri dish or whatever was OK. I also think it's fairly common practice to implant more than one zygote in the uterus with the understanding that there will be an option to cull some embryos.

I argued with a forum member here who claimed that there were plenty of loving, stable would-be parents to adopt every kid in need. He did not provide any evidence.

I also find these laws very patronizing. Don't worry, little lady, we won't come after you. Just the mean doctor who forced you to get an abortion.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Every sperm is different.
Therefore, masturbation is murder.