Personhood and Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

A highly controversial topic, but it's something that has been bothering me. In Oklahoma, where I'm from, our government is on the way toward passing a "Personhood" bill, which would effectively ban most if not all forms of abortion, as well as likely invitro fertilization and certain forms of birth control and contraception, and all of this would apply even in cases of rape.

http://ocrj.org/sites/default/files/HJR ... iled-1.txt

I've been getting into arguments on facebook about all of this for some time now, and it seems like no one I know agrees with my views and opinions, and I've upset and even lost some "friends" over the things I've had to say, so I keep wondering if I'm simply completely off-base.

While I dislike labels and find them limiting, at this moment and in relation to this topic, I would have to say I'm most closely a "Liberal Christian" but "Right-leaning Libertarian," and in regard to this issue specifically, either "pro-choice with exceptions" or "anti-abortion," as I feel "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" isn't really fitting.

My basic arguments, as primarily laid out on the pages or comments and photos of my liberal and feminist friends and acquiantances (simply because they're the ones being most vocal about birth control and abortion and what is happening here), is that I disagree with the bill, but on the other hand agree with the notion that unborn children are human beings, and that life begins some time AFTER conception but BEFORE birth (as opposed to the proposal's attempt to assert that life begins at conception).

I also believe that terminating a pregnancy is ending that life, but that killing does not imply murder and is not wrong in and of itself, but that it's morality might be determined by factors such as when, how, and why it is done. I've also said before that I disagreed with the statements that other people were making, specifically their claims that until a child is born, it is either not human, not living, or neither. My argument is that the fetus is human and alive, but I don't see that position as requiring one to be absolutely "pro-life" (for lack of a better phrasing), due to the ideas I mention above. Also, I find the notion that some people I know have been tossing around that a child is solely the non-human property of the woman alone, until it is born, as one that is dehumanizing and reminds me of arguments used to support genocide or slavery, which is probably what offended people the most. I oppose that position because I believe it negates questions of morality, when this is a decision that must involve morality.

I don't believe that decision is one for our government to make for everybody, but one the woman has to make for herself, whether or not I personally agree with her choices.

So people who support the bill, who appear to be mainly Fundamentalist Christians, have been getting mad at me and others, arguing that abortion is wrong, and therefore should be banned, and either the doctors or women or both be held legally accountable (which I disagree with), while people on the other side of the fence seem to be mad at me and Republicans for "judging" them, claiming that everyone must be "pro-choice" and feminist or else are "anti-women," which I don't understand, since I don't see those ideas as exclusive. I'm agreeing with them that the legislation is a form of enforcing morality that is potentially oppressive and harmful, but I'm disagreeing with them about the defition of personhood and life, and will continue to support my religious belief that certain actions can be irresponsible or immoral, while maintaining my political view that legislators shouldn't be the ones making those decisions for us. I don't see how that is "wrong"?

It's not wrong, it's a very sensible position. It's pretty much my position, too.

I think that people who claim that there is no moral dimension to abortion are talking nonsense. Of course there is. It's just that the issue is very philosophically messy, and sensitive to assumptions and intuitions that are not generally agreed-upon. For that reason, it is exactly the sort of issue that should not have a legal dimension.

Even Mississippi wouldnt pass it. lol.

But at least it openly attacks invitro fertilization, something that many abortion foes don't seem to want to deal with. It looks like it will ban some birth control and it forces women to carry a rapists baby to term. Women should risk their lives to carry a rapists baby because every fertilized zygote is sent from heaven.

Oh good. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I simply despise it that people feel the need to make so many generalizations, especially in relation to sensitive political or philosophical issues, such as this one, and especially if they're directed at me personally. I used to be really bad about black-and-white thinking, so I don't like when other people appear limited by that and unwilling to listen to other views. I also got offended if people said I was "against women," when my mother is probably one of the bigger influences on how I see the world, since she breaks the mold as an Evangelical Christian (whose religious views I don't see eye-to-eye on) and Democrat who's slightly more Leftist than I am, though she draws her lines at gay marriage and abortion.

This particular bill seems to have been almost entirely inspired by religious views, especially when you listen to some of the politicians supporting it, which is a part of why I think it's a bad idea that doesn't belong out there. My personal view might be that an unborn child is a living person, but I don't support pushing my beliefs on others at the risk of costing their liberty, health, or safety, so I don't like it assumed that myself or others with similar positions do.

you dont know anymore than anyone else,

also some facts about conscoiusness means there are some time limits and if your views fall outside of those you are most pårobably wrong, simples.

The earliest memories I have are from 3 years old. Anything prior to that is fragmentary. There...but fragmentary. I honestly don't think that the human brain is capable of putting information together to the effect of what we consider to be human consciousness much earlier than that. I honestly think that it's silly to believe that a fetus has the same kind of mind as a child. It just doesn't.

As long as the legality of abortion is in doubt, it will always be seen by many as a necessity and a right. When it is considered to be low-class, it will cease to be popular.

It is all very simple. Whatever is in the woman's body produced by her own metabolic processes is her property. That includes skin, bones, hair, blood, sh*t and fetuses.

Laws forbidding abortion prohibit the women from disposing of her property.

New born infants and fetuses are not persons. Period. Why? Not enough neural tissue to be a person.

ruveyn

I'm somewhat disappointed Mississippi didn't pass it, but on the other hand there was a lot of vague language in our version of it and if those guys from Colorado don't at least address the problems with what they're trying to do, they'll never get anything like that passed anywhere and their actions will only have the effect of solidifying public opinion AGAINST them.

One thing we heard here in Mississippi was, "OK, so it has flaws, and we understand that...but let's just pass it and let the courts figure it out from there." Um...NO. Obamacare has serious problems and it's not even close to being off the books yet--one of the biggest strikes against our personhood vote was having experienced firsthand just how difficult it is to undo a law once it has been done. The proposition as it stood would have opened the doors to putting someone on trial for manslaughter for having a miscarriage.

Mississippi could have ended abortion here if two things had happened:
1. If it had started as an initiative among Mississippi voters and not some activists from Colorado.
2. If a personhood/anti-abortion bill had gone through a congressional committee in which the problems could have been discussed and properly ironed out.

You're invited to check my facts, of course, but I think there's only one abortion clinic even in the state and the abortion laws that we do have are probably the toughest in the nation. Abortion might not formally be illegal in Mississippi, but in reality it might as well be. If it aint broke, don't fix it!

The effects cited by opponents of this bill have so far not eventuated. As far as I am aware, states that have adopted personhood legislation have so far not had their sky collapse.



I think the reason why you have been unable to sit in a moderate position on this issue is that there is a fair amount of agreement between both sides on this issue already. Both sides generally acknowledge that if we are to consider the unborn child human, then it is entitled to it's natural rights. If it is not human, then it is not entitled to any rights. The idea that one can be both human and without rights, is an idea that has not really found all that much traction and is in my view a far more terrifying concept than the absolute pro-choice position that denies that what we are talking about is not human.

Hmm, very lovely the way you talk about this.

What exactly constitutes a person? You are breaking a person down into neural tissue which I find highly offensive, and I think many women would also find highly offensive. You have to keep in mind that not all women are pro-choice. Some are pro-life and have legitimate reason for their opinions.

I agree with Declension's post that it is a messy topic, and anyone who claims to have a hard-and-fast 100% moral solution is fooling themself.

I am pro-choice because I consider it the best of two evils, not because I turn the fetus into an object that can be readily disposed of. I find this view highly offensive.

The question at which point life begins does not compute. Life began 3.5 - 3.8 billion years ago and has been an ongoing process since then. A sperm is alive, and so is an unfertilized ovum. There is no radically different and new form of life all of a sudden when the two cells fuse.

We could debate at which point a fetus might be capable of feeling emotions, or at which point it might become self-aware. But all that is moot, because we simply cannot force a woman to carry a fetus to terms against her will. That's inhumane. A woman is most definitely a self-aware human being, and we cannot reduce her to a walking incubator. People have the right to decide if they want something to grow inside their body or not, and this right of self-determination trumps the hypothetical rights of an embyro or fetus.

We are Flesh, Blood and Bone. We are made of the same kind of stuff as sticks and stones. Everything we are can be looked up in The Periodic Table of the Elements. Do you think there is anything more to us than the physical stuff of which we are composed?

ruveyn

Here's my method:

Extract the fetus, put it in a container. Two possibilities:
a) Fetus lives and develops and becomes a baby. Thus it was a viable human. Illegal to kill but thankfully it didn't die.
b) Fetus dies, it wasn't a viable human, too bad for the fetus, but not a human.

So we'll start handing out social security numbers for the 50% of zygotes that naturally don't implant and go down the toilet?

We'll need new greeting cards, "Sorry your four day son Pete went down the toilet, he's with Jesus now, Probably asking him why he went down the toilet after just four days."

I don't think that makes sense. If I put you in a container with no food, you would die. Does that mean that you're not a person?

* I would survive at least 3 days.
* I am already a human being, no need to prove I am a viable potential human being.
* By Container I mean those things in which they bake premature fetii.