Roe v. Wade is history
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,911
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
23 Jul 2022, 11:42 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
That’s almost entirely a myth. Current medical practice makes pregnancy and delivery easily survivable in almost every situation. Doctors managed to save both my wife and oldest daughter. They delivered my youngest daughter by section while discussing college basketball. So the risk to mother is entirely a myth unless you show me evidence otherwise. Heck, I’ll do it for you: ectopic pregnancies almost never make it to term, almost always rupture or turn septic, and almost certainly kill the mother if she attempts to make it to term.
Preeclampsia is extremely risky, requires constant monitoring. It is survivable, but is it worth the risk? That can only be answered by parents who have to endure it.
What if the baby dies in the womb or cannot survive outside the womb? That’s a tough one. But certainly a parent should have the right to medical options when there is no point in continuing the pregnancy.
The girl is very young, is the victim of abuse/rape? Well, that genuinely IS an issue for bodily autonomy and parents making the best decisions on behalf of their children. But to justify killing a baby, the abuser must be brought to justice. I don’t waiting for a conviction is necessary since it is possible to report a crime early and have an abortion immediately when a baby is detected—taking a test once a week and medically confirmed immediately after the first positive home test. That’s reasonable. I don’t LIKE the idea of destroying ANY child for ANY reason since it isn’t the fault of the child that it exists under unfortunate circumstances. But to decide to destroy a life must be a rational one, not simply a matter of wanting the pleasure of sex and none of the consequences. That can be avoided. So unless rape or abuse is the cause, conception is a choice.
Preeclampsia is extremely risky, requires constant monitoring. It is survivable, but is it worth the risk? That can only be answered by parents who have to endure it.
What if the baby dies in the womb or cannot survive outside the womb? That’s a tough one. But certainly a parent should have the right to medical options when there is no point in continuing the pregnancy.
The girl is very young, is the victim of abuse/rape? Well, that genuinely IS an issue for bodily autonomy and parents making the best decisions on behalf of their children. But to justify killing a baby, the abuser must be brought to justice. I don’t waiting for a conviction is necessary since it is possible to report a crime early and have an abortion immediately when a baby is detected—taking a test once a week and medically confirmed immediately after the first positive home test. That’s reasonable. I don’t LIKE the idea of destroying ANY child for ANY reason since it isn’t the fault of the child that it exists under unfortunate circumstances. But to decide to destroy a life must be a rational one, not simply a matter of wanting the pleasure of sex and none of the consequences. That can be avoided. So unless rape or abuse is the cause, conception is a choice.
Dude, a personal antecdote about your wifes pregnancy going smooth is not proof that abortion is obsolete or that the readily availible information about pregnancy complications and women talking about their experiences with such things are myths. Tons and tons of doctors and medical professionals who care for pregnant women would disagree. I am glad hers went well that is nice, but its not the case for everyone who gets pregnant.
Also, its confusing you think women should be able to end a pregnancy if it becomes too dangerous or the fetus is unviable, but you support legislation that gets directly in the way of doctors being able to perform an abortion in a timely fashion for those women and instead can force them to wait till the complications start killing or causing them severe health problems to intervene where abortion is the treatment. Like that article you think is a myth talked about a woman who's pregnancy wasn't viable but was told to go home and wait for signs of infection, so she traveled to a legal abortion state to get it taken care of rather than waiting for infection.
And it is a religious belief that sex for pleasure and not conception is a sin or whatever, that should not be imposed on people who don't follow such beliefs. I mean what do you think condoms or birth control is for? Your suggestion is really for couples who don't want kids is to just never have sex? That is ridiculous.
AngelRho wrote:
One person’s anecdote is another person’s lived experience. Come back and talk to me about it when you’ve been there yourself. There is nothing funny about your partner almost dying right in front of you.
And who is invoking religion? Sex naturally leads to pregnancy. B.C. methods reduce the risk to near zero. No sex = no baby. Ever.
And if you insist on invoke religion, abstinence only failed ONCE in human history, and even THAT girl consented.
And who is invoking religion? Sex naturally leads to pregnancy. B.C. methods reduce the risk to near zero. No sex = no baby. Ever.
And if you insist on invoke religion, abstinence only failed ONCE in human history, and even THAT girl consented.
Well yes anecdotes are life experience; point is one person's life experience does not disprove other peoples experiences that differ from theirs. And of course there is nothing funny about your partner almost dying or actually dying right in front of you, that said I never suggested that would be funny. So not sure where you got that.
Also yes sex can lead to pregnancy birth control methods reduce that risk but that does not mean if it fails a woman should be obligated to take an unwanted pregnancy to term. If they personally believe it is wrong to have an abortion and feel they should take responsibility by taking it to term then by all means they should, but it's not for them to impose on other people who don't believe in that philosophy.
And well I grew up christian and heard the story of Mary and baby Jesus so many times. But there was never a point in the story where god asked her permission to impregnate her and she verbally agreed. It was more presented as god came to her made her pregnant and it was her vision that it was her duty to give birth. Does not seem consent was ever a factor in that story.
_________________
We won't go back.
24 Jul 2022, 12:04 am
AngelRho wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
One thing to be mindful of (for both of us) is that emotions change and that allowing them to entirely inform laws will be likely to result in a backlash that might well leave things further in 'the wrong' direction from where things started.
That's why at some point reason needs to be applied and while emotions can power arguments on both sides, logic doesn't favour the antichoice position and attempts to argue for it from that perspective are always far less effective because the logic doesn't favour any conclusion but it does reinforce the more emotional pro-choice arguments much more than in reinforces any antichoice arguments.
That's why at some point reason needs to be applied and while emotions can power arguments on both sides, logic doesn't favour the antichoice position and attempts to argue for it from that perspective are always far less effective because the logic doesn't favour any conclusion but it does reinforce the more emotional pro-choice arguments much more than in reinforces any antichoice arguments.
That's going to come down to your presuppositions, though, as to whether logic is going to favor one position over another. You presuppose that killing babies is always justifiable at the whim of the mother. The only assumption I make is that life is the ultimate value and highest standard by which all else is measured. From there, it follows logically that the protection of the unborn is as important as the born. The greatest moral failing is the destruction of life. Anything that directly threatens life forfeits its right to exist, and this includes the unborn as well as the born. Abortion must be allowed only as long as it can be justified, same as self defense, same as the death penalty. If you cannot justify killing someone for the reason you don't want a baby, then you cannot justify killing your baby. You have cancer and cannot survive to both have a baby and beat cancer. You are a single mother with 4 kids with a complicated pregnancy, and being dead means your kids are orphaned. You are an 11-year old rape victim and can't reasonably expect to carry a baby to term. You are a newlywed trying for your first baby and find out it’s ectopic. You chose your life, your children’s lives, over the life of a deadly pregnancy...or not. Same as if you face a home intruder, you have no obligation to kill him. But you are justified if you do.
But causing pain or trauma by itself isn't enough to justify killing someone. I have a pretty long list of post-birth abortions I would have performed back when I was a much more bitter person. But, if I’m being honest, at worst all they deserve is to lose their own jobs. In a logical, objective justice system, you are only called to punish another person equivalent to the crime or injury they committed. And since a healthy, normal pregnancy only costs a woman 40 weeks plus recovery, there is no justification for killing the baby, without which no person is ever allowed to kill anyone.
Emotions? Emotions are why we even have logic. Logic is a servant to emotion because our values and desires are bound up in our emotions. Emotions give us “why.” Logic gives us the means to achieve the “why.” Life is the ultimate objective standard. Our emotional desire to preserve and protect it is the why. Logic gives us the means to conclude by preserving life and enjoying all the good things that come with life. Logic helps shape your values along with how you go about achieving them. For example, I choose to live because I discovered I am naturally predisposed to making music. I choose to live because I’m a good father and husband. To lose music, to lose my family, to lose my wife would mean having to exist in a void without everything that makes life worth living. I would choose life because life is all that’s left, and I would make decisions about achieving things within my ability to support life for as long as I can.
I am amused by Star Trek’s Vulcan’s claim to live an emotion-free life. It's the ultimate in hypocrisy. The decision to deny emotion is itself an emotional product. Denying emotion is perhaps the most unreasonable of all choices, the most illogical. All logic stems from pursuing value. If life is the measure of value, pursuing one’s own rational self interest is the highest moral aim. Romantic love isn't about sacrificing self for the sake of some nice guy who claims to love you. Romantic love is about finding the ideal man with whom you share the most values. It becomes more about being lead from the head rather than the heart. You discover your man is a narcissist? Walk away. Emotion tells us we love him and he’s worth it because of that. Logic tells us that by loving ourselves FIRST and knowing our own intrinsic value, it is far better to die free than live a slave. Since life is the highest value and standard against which all other values are measured, on logically conclude the slave is never alive in any sense that matters. And the narcissist who coerces through force forfeits his own rights to freedom.
In a nutshell, this is logic vs emotion. There is no point for one without the other.
You speak of babies when no babies are involved, baby is typically reserved for people who've been born. The initial premise is flawed so of course the conclusions reached from it will also be.
You speak of killing when no obligation to sustain exists. If one wishes to remove something from their flesh the fact that it will die as a result is irrelevant.
It's hard to really talk about the sanctity of life and sound like you mean it when you've reduced all of us to only meaning as much as a just implanted zygote which you somehow are able to distinguish as more 'sanctified' than an equally human, equally living collection of human cells.
You call it logic but I'd say your "logic" debunks itself the more you're pressed.
All I can say is that I value the rights of people over those of potential people and that potential people have no inherent right to life because that will inevitably conflict with inalienable rights possessed by all people. Real people always beat hypothetical people.
You are ASSUMING they aren't real people. You haven't proven that they aren't.
For the moment allowing abortion bans only means banning a quasi-medical procedure. It doesn't imply or establish personhood. Some believe personhood is the logical next step. Arizona is attempting this, I understand, and their law is currently making its way through the courts. The assertion you make regarding personhood seems to be in doubt, at least in Arizona.
You are also making a false assumption that science and medicine are fixed, set in stone. The now-defunct Casey ruling held viability as the standard by which the states were allowed to regulate abortion. This had the unintentional consequence of raising the question of what viability even means. Since Casey established viability at n-weeks, it stands to reason that personhood is established before birth. Dobbs raised the question of whether viability could possibly be achieved earlier, and theoretically it is a possibility.
Your concept of personhood as exclusively outside the womb is antiquated and not well supported, especially given the concessions of Casey and court acknowledgment of future scientific and medical discoveries that might challenge present notions of personhood. In at least one instance, a state already legally asserts personhood as beginning with fertilization.
I don't agree with Arizona’s definition myself, but I do think it is interesting that a state legislature views a human being as such at the earliest possible moment to do so.
According to your view of the world, Known:
At one certain point, the fetus is human. This is 100% scientific support.
At the same time, different states will choose different nodes.
So there are only two possibilities:
A. Science must have been distorted in some states.
B. Some states are allowing murder or wrongly impose more restrictions.
But on the other hand, we unlikely treat fertilized eggs that are not in the womb as human beings or file a murder lawsuit for spontaneous abortion. So this line is still negotiable.
Should 100% science be adjusted according to the limitations of law?
_________________
With the help of translation software.
Cover your eyes, if you like. It will serve no purpose.
You might expect to be able to crush them in your hand, into wolf-bone fragments.
Dance with me, funeralxempire. Into night's circle we fly, until the fire enjoys us.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
24 Jul 2022, 7:59 am
SkinnedWolf wrote:
According to your view of the world, Known:
At one certain point, the fetus is human. This is 100% scientific support.
At the same time, different states will choose different nodes.
So there are only two possibilities:
A. Science must have been distorted in some states.
B. Some states are allowing murder or wrongly impose more restrictions.
But on the other hand, we unlikely treat fertilized eggs that are not in the womb as human beings or file a murder lawsuit for spontaneous abortion. So this line is still negotiable.
Should 100% science be adjusted according to the limitations of law?
At one certain point, the fetus is human. This is 100% scientific support.
At the same time, different states will choose different nodes.
So there are only two possibilities:
A. Science must have been distorted in some states.
B. Some states are allowing murder or wrongly impose more restrictions.
But on the other hand, we unlikely treat fertilized eggs that are not in the womb as human beings or file a murder lawsuit for spontaneous abortion. So this line is still negotiable.
Should 100% science be adjusted according to the limitations of law?
No, you can’t adjust science. Science only helps us understand the world as it is a little bit better. So if you adjust science you only get distortions that aren’t really going to help inform your worldview any better. We accept that science is limited by current knowledge and ability, but also that this knowledge and ability is always expanding. Is it logically possible that science could discover sentience in a single cell? It is, although at the moment it might not be ACTUALLY possible. If a conclusion is reached based on science, it must be accepted that better conclusions can be drawn as we grow and learn. What if an embryo is sentient? Then we are responsible for genocide. If there is even the possibility that a thing is human, then abortion makes us murderers. Logically all you can do is put the baby on a level playing field where threats, even unintentional ones, are treated the same as with adults.
Even in the adult world, if someone through no fault of their own unknowingly does something that could harm you and you act within your right to reasonably defend yourself and end up killing the other person, intentionally or unintentionally, you cannot be found guilty for that. It’s a tragic accident, but it happens. And I see no reason why the same principle doesn’t apply in the womb.
Where we run into trouble has nothing to do with science but whether the states are being reasonable. My “emotions” (haha) tell me that implantation is a better standard for personhood in legal terms because at that point an embryo is demonstrating that it has some degree of agency. It can continue to grow and develop. My main concern is arbitrarily defining something as human to justify killing it. If it came from two humans, it IS human, and must be treated as such.
Also, it’s useless to argue that legal definitions aren’t arbitrary at least to some degree. But it’s important to avoid unreasonable measures such as test-tube embryos, stem cells, cancer cells, etc. that aren’t in a position to show independent agency. Is my definition arbitrary? Sure. But I don’t see how you can create a definition of personhood that is more reasonable.
24 Jul 2022, 8:36 am
Twilightprincess wrote:
Quote:
As many as 50,000 women experience severe, unexpected health problems related to pregnancy each year. Some may have long-term health consequences, and others may not survive. Over 700 women die each year in the U.S. from problems related to pregnancy or delivery complications.
https://www.cdc.gov/hearher/allysonfelix/index.html
I was in the hospital for 10 days after I gave birth to my son.
My doctor informed me later that my situation gave him anxiety and insomnia. He met with other top doctors in the field in order to keep my alive.
The reality is that many women who experience my particular complication, and many others, do not survive or experience lifelong negative effects which can shorten their lifespan and quality of life.
Some women’s lives would be seriously at risk if they went on to have other pregnancies after such a serious health scare.
The point is that the issue of health concerns is one reason among many why abortion should be accessible to people. It’s by far not the only reason, though. There are so many unique situations. No matter what, we all should have the right to bodily autonomy.
(I also experienced domestic violence during and after my pregnancy. Narcissists do not like it when they aren’t the center of attention. Women should be able to safely and confidentially get abortions. Ideally, there would be no domestic violence, health issues, or complicated situations, but we aren’t living in an ideal world.)
I didn't think that teaching true history in itself as considered critical race theory, it's just that when teachers get really preachy about it, that it feels that way, or so I thought that's what the right thought, unless I am wrong?
24 Jul 2022, 9:28 am
ironpony wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Quote:
As many as 50,000 women experience severe, unexpected health problems related to pregnancy each year. Some may have long-term health consequences, and others may not survive. Over 700 women die each year in the U.S. from problems related to pregnancy or delivery complications.
https://www.cdc.gov/hearher/allysonfelix/index.html
I was in the hospital for 10 days after I gave birth to my son.
My doctor informed me later that my situation gave him anxiety and insomnia. He met with other top doctors in the field in order to keep my alive.
The reality is that many women who experience my particular complication, and many others, do not survive or experience lifelong negative effects which can shorten their lifespan and quality of life.
Some women’s lives would be seriously at risk if they went on to have other pregnancies after such a serious health scare.
The point is that the issue of health concerns is one reason among many why abortion should be accessible to people. It’s by far not the only reason, though. There are so many unique situations. No matter what, we all should have the right to bodily autonomy.
(I also experienced domestic violence during and after my pregnancy. Narcissists do not like it when they aren’t the center of attention. Women should be able to safely and confidentially get abortions. Ideally, there would be no domestic violence, health issues, or complicated situations, but we aren’t living in an ideal world.)
I didn't think that teaching true history in itself as considered critical race theory, it's just that when teachers get really preachy about it, that it feels that way, or so I thought that's what the right thought, unless I am wrong?
I don’t see how my post was related to critical race theory.
Some people do think that teaching true history is teaching critical race theory, though. I’ve heard some extreme conservatives say that they should only teach the three r’s: reading, writing and arithmetic.
_________________
“I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems.”
— Elton John
24 Jul 2022, 10:20 am
Sweetleaf wrote:
And well I grew up christian and heard the story of Mary and baby Jesus so many times. But there was never a point in the story where god asked her permission to impregnate her and she verbally agreed. It was more presented as god came to her made her pregnant and it was her vision that it was her duty to give birth. Does not seem consent was ever a factor in that story.
Then you were not listening very well.
Luke 1:38 : Mary said, “I am the Lord’s servant. Let this thing you have said happen to me!” Then the angel went away.
24 Jul 2022, 10:24 am
What is said in a work compiled 2-3 millennia ago just might be irrelevant to the 21st century.
There’s lots of fine wisdom in the Bible….but there’s also lots that is anachronistic.
Abortion is a very sticky issue. But I believe in “choice.” I don’t believe in third-trimester abortion.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
24 Jul 2022, 10:33 am
ironpony wrote:
I didn't think that teaching true history in itself as considered critical race theory, it's just that when teachers get really preachy about it, that it feels that way, or so I thought that's what the right thought, unless I am wrong?
The philosophical significance of CRT is that it is a deconstruction of history among other things along the lines of varying layers of oppression. The facts of American history is that blacks were oppressed by white slave owners and later faced discrimination arising out of white resentment for a slough of mistakes the government made in protecting blacks and their rights. CRT frames the facts of history in a legal context by putting ALL responsibility on white men for oppression as though there is a genetic connection between whiteness, maleness, and racism and oppression.
It’s not that CRT rewrites history exactly. It’s just that it reinterprets facts to reflect a biased outlook. The response that is expected from white people is to admit to being racist and step out of the way. And if a white person really isn’t racist, it’s unreasonable to expect him to answer for it.
24 Jul 2022, 10:35 am
AngelRho wrote:
SkinnedWolf wrote:
According to your view of the world, Known:
At one certain point, the fetus is human. This is 100% scientific support.
At the same time, different states will choose different nodes.
So there are only two possibilities:
A. Science must have been distorted in some states.
B. Some states are allowing murder or wrongly impose more restrictions.
But on the other hand, we unlikely treat fertilized eggs that are not in the womb as human beings or file a murder lawsuit for spontaneous abortion. So this line is still negotiable.
Should 100% science be adjusted according to the limitations of law?
At one certain point, the fetus is human. This is 100% scientific support.
At the same time, different states will choose different nodes.
So there are only two possibilities:
A. Science must have been distorted in some states.
B. Some states are allowing murder or wrongly impose more restrictions.
But on the other hand, we unlikely treat fertilized eggs that are not in the womb as human beings or file a murder lawsuit for spontaneous abortion. So this line is still negotiable.
Should 100% science be adjusted according to the limitations of law?
No, you can’t adjust science. Science only helps us understand the world as it is a little bit better. So if you adjust science you only get distortions that aren’t really going to help inform your worldview any better. We accept that science is limited by current knowledge and ability, but also that this knowledge and ability is always expanding. Is it logically possible that science could discover sentience in a single cell? It is, although at the moment it might not be ACTUALLY possible. If a conclusion is reached based on science, it must be accepted that better conclusions can be drawn as we grow and learn. What if an embryo is sentient? Then we are responsible for genocide. If there is even the possibility that a thing is human, then abortion makes us murderers. Logically all you can do is put the baby on a level playing field where threats, even unintentional ones, are treated the same as with adults.
Even in the adult world, if someone through no fault of their own unknowingly does something that could harm you and you act within your right to reasonably defend yourself and end up killing the other person, intentionally or unintentionally, you cannot be found guilty for that. It’s a tragic accident, but it happens. And I see no reason why the same principle doesn’t apply in the womb.
Where we run into trouble has nothing to do with science but whether the states are being reasonable. My “emotions” (haha) tell me that implantation is a better standard for personhood in legal terms because at that point an embryo is demonstrating that it has some degree of agency. It can continue to grow and develop. My main concern is arbitrarily defining something as human to justify killing it. If it came from two humans, it IS human, and must be treated as such.
Also, it’s useless to argue that legal definitions aren’t arbitrary at least to some degree. But it’s important to avoid unreasonable measures such as test-tube embryos, stem cells, cancer cells, etc. that aren’t in a position to show independent agency. Is my definition arbitrary? Sure. But I don’t see how you can create a definition of personhood that is more reasonable.
So what is the standard: at a certain node, the fetus/fertilized egg is human, but for some reason, the law cannot protect them, and this is still reasonable.
_________________
With the help of translation software.
Cover your eyes, if you like. It will serve no purpose.
You might expect to be able to crush them in your hand, into wolf-bone fragments.
Dance with me, funeralxempire. Into night's circle we fly, until the fire enjoys us.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
24 Jul 2022, 10:42 am
Twilightprincess wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Quote:
As many as 50,000 women experience severe, unexpected health problems related to pregnancy each year. Some may have long-term health consequences, and others may not survive. Over 700 women die each year in the U.S. from problems related to pregnancy or delivery complications.
https://www.cdc.gov/hearher/allysonfelix/index.html
I was in the hospital for 10 days after I gave birth to my son.
My doctor informed me later that my situation gave him anxiety and insomnia. He met with other top doctors in the field in order to keep my alive.
The reality is that many women who experience my particular complication, and many others, do not survive or experience lifelong negative effects which can shorten their lifespan and quality of life.
Some women’s lives would be seriously at risk if they went on to have other pregnancies after such a serious health scare.
The point is that the issue of health concerns is one reason among many why abortion should be accessible to people. It’s by far not the only reason, though. There are so many unique situations. No matter what, we all should have the right to bodily autonomy.
(I also experienced domestic violence during and after my pregnancy. Narcissists do not like it when they aren’t the center of attention. Women should be able to safely and confidentially get abortions. Ideally, there would be no domestic violence, health issues, or complicated situations, but we aren’t living in an ideal world.)
I didn't think that teaching true history in itself as considered critical race theory, it's just that when teachers get really preachy about it, that it feels that way, or so I thought that's what the right thought, unless I am wrong?
I don’t see how my post was related to critical race theory.
Some people do think that teaching true history is teaching critical race theory, though. I’ve heard some extreme conservatives say that they should only teach the three r’s: reading, writing and arithmetic.
I was kinda confused by that, too. Unless you count the intersectionality of race and gender…
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
24 Jul 2022, 12:17 pm
SkinnedWolf wrote:
So what is the standard: at a certain node, the fetus/fertilized egg is human, but for some reason, the law cannot protect them, and this is still reasonable.
Well, because you can’t know exactly when conception happens. You only know when you get a positive home test which…you more often get false negatives than positives, meaning a positive test is almost always accurate. If you suspect you could be pregnant and start testing about when you expect your period, you could get a positive within two weeks. And that would put you within 6 weeks of gestation when you find out. You can only guess about when you most likely would conceive, so roughly about a week out from your last period. If you don’t know you’ve conceived and you have a period, how can you be held responsible for that?
Look at it this way: Imagine there’s a guy who suddenly showed up in town. And let’s say nobody knows who he is, and nobody has even seen him. He has no identification, no dental records, no living family or friends who miss him. But YOU see him. You look around…no witnesses…and you kill him, stuff him in a garbage bag, put him in the trunk of your car, and calmly drive out to a lake. You put him in a boat, go out to the middle of the lake, weigh him down, and drop him to the bottom of the lake, and go home and go back to your normal life. No witnesses. No evidence. Nobody comes looking, nobody dredges the lake for any reason, nothing.
Explain to me who is going to charge you with murder? In the eyes of the law, no body, no evidence, no witnesses, no crime. It’s not that you aren’t a murderer. It’s just there’s nobody around who’s going to do anything about it.
Now, 30 years later, you start running your mouth about everything you did and they find a body in the lake, you might end up in prison.
But that’s what the issue of personhood amounts to. If a baby dies and you never knew the baby was even there, and NOBODY knew the baby was there, there is no evidence of a baby, etc., there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
So I think first and foremost we need laws to protect the unborn. We start there. We establish when personhood begins—quickening, heartbeat, implantation, fertilization, whatever—and the next thing that has to happen is to make sure women are protected from unreasonable prosecution for things they can’t control. If a doctor proves that a baby has died, nothing useful can come of forcing a woman to suffer through a miscarriage at home. My wife did that voluntarily after her second miscarriage. It’s an awful thing to deal with. And so just like it would be unreasonable to punish a woman for…well, for having her period, you have to look at other things as well—punishing a woman for being raped, for example.
All other things apart from that have to do with choices people make to have children, or are external issues to be handled separately. No one has the right to abuse a spouse, so you deal with abusers. You wouldn’t kill your friend because your husband got jealous and beats you for having a girls night out.
My wife has been the victim of an abusive ex-bf. It’s not an easy thing to fix. Myself and some of her friends pretty much stood 24/7 guard for a few weeks making sure he could never see her. As soon as he slipped up, and they always slip up, we went to the police and had him arrested. And that was the end of that.
But killing a baby to enable a mentally unstable partner does not fix the problem of an unstable partner. If a partner is abusive and uses children as leverage to keep in contact with an ex, then in a similar way you get support, collect evidence, and attack the abuser’s freedom and ability to abuse. Attacking children isn’t very reasonable.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,215
Location: Right over your left shoulder
24 Jul 2022, 1:12 pm
AngelRho wrote:
You are ASSUMING they aren't real people. You haven't proven that they aren't.
If you're making a positive claim you're the party obliged to substantiate the claim. I'm simply rejecting your claims as unsubstantiated.
_________________
I was ashamed of myself when I realised life was a costume party and I attended with my real face
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell
24 Jul 2022, 7:22 pm
AngelRho wrote:
ironpony wrote:
I didn't think that teaching true history in itself as considered critical race theory, it's just that when teachers get really preachy about it, that it feels that way, or so I thought that's what the right thought, unless I am wrong?
The philosophical significance of CRT is that it is a deconstruction of history among other things along the lines of varying layers of oppression. The facts of American history is that blacks were oppressed by white slave owners and later faced discrimination arising out of white resentment for a slough of mistakes the government made in protecting blacks and their rights. CRT frames the facts of history in a legal context by putting ALL responsibility on white men for oppression as though there is a genetic connection between whiteness, maleness, and racism and oppression.
It’s not that CRT rewrites history exactly. It’s just that it reinterprets facts to reflect a biased outlook. The response that is expected from white people is to admit to being racist and step out of the way. And if a white person really isn’t racist, it’s unreasonable to expect him to answer for it.
Oh I see. That makes sense, as there seems to be some of that going around lately. But hasn't every race tried to racially oppress another race? Like for example didn't the Japanese try to oppress races of other countries during WWII, and didn't for example, the Hutus try to oppress the Tutsis in the Rwanda genocide? But my gf said that didn't count as racism, because the hutus and the tutsis were both black, if she has a point? Did it count as racism for the Japanese WWII invasions?
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,911
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
24 Jul 2022, 8:49 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Even in the adult world, if someone through no fault of their own unknowingly does something that could harm you and you act within your right to reasonably defend yourself and end up killing the other person, intentionally or unintentionally, you cannot be found guilty for that. It’s a tragic accident, but it happens. And I see no reason why the same principle doesn’t apply in the womb.
Where we run into trouble has nothing to do with science but whether the states are being reasonable. My “emotions” (haha) tell me that implantation is a better standard for personhood in legal terms because at that point an embryo is demonstrating that it has some degree of agency. It can continue to grow and develop. My main concern is arbitrarily defining something as human to justify killing it. If it came from two humans, it IS human, and must be treated as such.
The reason it should not apply in the womb is because the womb is inside of a sentient person. It's not a thing that just exists on its own it is a part of a woman's body. That means the pregnancy will effect that person specifically therefore they should be able to choose if they want to try and take a pregnancy to term and try for having a baby, or if they want to abort before it can become a baby.
Also an embro leeching of nutrients from the mother is not agency, I will not say embroys/fetuses are parasites, as it is not a parasite if it's a growing embroy/fetus. However an embryo/fetus does function similar to a parasite, but that is more genetic programing than agency. Basically, the only thing an embro/fetus cares about is getting sustinence to develop it will not stop trying taking nutrients even if the mother is malnourished for instance. It is genetic programming that it develops and grows and does its best to survive not agency. Like you can't have agency if you don't even have a brain yet which is the case when most embroys/fetuses are aborted.
_________________
We won't go back.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,911
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
24 Jul 2022, 10:35 pm
SpiceWolf wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
And well I grew up christian and heard the story of Mary and baby Jesus so many times. But there was never a point in the story where god asked her permission to impregnate her and she verbally agreed. It was more presented as god came to her made her pregnant and it was her vision that it was her duty to give birth. Does not seem consent was ever a factor in that story.
Then you were not listening very well.
Luke 1:38 : Mary said, “I am the Lord’s servant. Let this thing you have said happen to me!” Then the angel went away.
Perhaps, but idk at least coercion was involved like who would say no to god wanting to impregnate them even if they weren't sure...it's god he had the power to inflict terrible things upon people according to the mythology so with that kind of power imbalance how could you say no?
But there is also the idea they were not married yet, and had premarital sex and didnt want to admit it. or that he was much older and so perhaps she had sex with someone else... and lied...maybe she admitted it and joseph still cared about her so didn't want to make it public that she cheated. Being an atheist I figure those are both more realistic explanations.
_________________
We won't go back.
24 Jul 2022, 10:39 pm
SpiceWolf wrote:
Then you were not listening very well.
Luke 1:38 : Mary said, “I am the Lord’s servant. Let this thing you have said happen to me!” Then the angel went away.
Luke 1:38 : Mary said, “I am the Lord’s servant. Let this thing you have said happen to me!” Then the angel went away.
Sounds like some very crafty editing to me.
Either way, people with this attitude need to get over themselves.
Not everyone is Christian and nor is their religion controlled by the government.
_________________
I never give you my number, I only give you my situation.
Beatles
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
|
Question about my history of depressive experience.
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
09 Nov 2024, 12:11 am |
