Abortion

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Abortion

Post by henry quirk »

Walker wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:40 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:31 am
Property is property. My car, my house, my bed, my gun, etc.
That takes you right back to my body my choice.

:lol:
Yes, it does. My body, my choice (which does not include the baby in your womb [he's attached to you but is not part of you]).
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by iambiguous »

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/us/a ... erson.html

Kate Zernike
Published Aug. 21, 2022 in the NYT

'Even as roughly half the states have moved to enact near-total bans on abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, anti-abortion activists are pushing for a long-held and more absolute goal: laws that grant fetuses the same legal rights and protections as any person.

So-called fetal personhood laws would make abortion murder, ruling out all or most of the exceptions for abortion allowed in states that already ban it. So long as Roe established a constitutional right to abortion, such laws remained symbolic in the few states that managed to pass them. Now they are starting to have practical effect. Already in Georgia, a fetus now qualifies for tax credits and child support, and is to be included in population counts and redistricting.'


Now we get down to the nitty-gritty of a post-Roe world.

If the fetus is a person and aborting it is murder, then thousands upon thousands of women may well be arrested, charged with premeditated first-degree murder and, if found guilty, sent to death row in some states.

Same for those who perform the abortions.

And if it is a woman that you know and love...so be it?

Practiced safe sex but the contraception failed? No exception.

Gang raped and made pregnant? No exception. Raped and impregnated by a brother or a father? No exception. Mental health imperiled if forced to give birth? No exception. Physical health imperiled if forced to give birth? No exception.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by commonsense »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 6:40 pm https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/us/a ... erson.html

Kate Zernike
Published Aug. 21, 2022 in the NYT

'Even as roughly half the states have moved to enact near-total bans on abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in to June, anti-abortion activists are pushing for a long-held and more absolute goal: laws that grant fetuses the same legal rights and protections as any person.

So-called fetal personhood laws would make abortion murder, ruling out all or most of the exceptions for abortion allowed in states that already ban it. So long as Roe established a constitutional right to abortion, such laws remained symbolic in the few states that managed to pass them. Now they are starting to have practical effect. Already in Georgia, a fetus now qualifies for tax credits and child support, and is to be included in population counts and redistricting.'


Now we get down to the nitty-gritty of a post-Roe world.

If the fetus is a person and aborting it is murder, then thousands upon thousands of women may well be arrested, charged with premeditated first-degree murder and, if found guilty, sent to death row in some states.

Same for those who perform the abortions.

And if it is a woman that you know and love...so be it?

Practiced safe sex but the contraception failed? No exception.

Gang raped and made pregnant? No exception. Raped and impregnated by a brother or a father? No exception. Mental health imperiled if forced to give birth? No exception. Physical health imperiled if forced to give birth? No exception.
Understood. We’ll just have to see what situations actually move DAs to prosecute.
FrankGSterleJr
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:41 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by FrankGSterleJr »

As liberal democracies, we cannot prevent anyone from bearing children, including those who insist upon procreating regardless of their inability to raise children in a psychologically functional/healthy manner. We can, however, educate all young people for the most important job ever, even those high-schoolers who plan to remain childless. If nothing else, such curriculum could offer students an idea/clue as to whether they’re emotionally suited for the immense responsibility and strains of parenthood.

Yet, owing to the Only If It’s In My Own Back Yard mindset, the prevailing collective attitude (implicit or subconscious) basically follows: ‘Why should I care — my kids are alright?’ or ‘What is in it for me, the taxpayer, if I support programs for other people’s troubled families?’ While some people will justify it as a normal thus moral human evolutionary function, the self-serving OIIIMOBY can debilitate social progress, even when social progress is most needed.

As for abortion services, I strongly feel that they, along with critical health services and long-term-care residences, should never be a for-profit medical procedure. ... Now if only nearly as much concern was given to the already born and breathing as is given the unborn, some real progress could be made.

I believe that high-schoolers should be educated for the most important job ever, even those who plan to remain childless. If nothing else, child-development science curriculum could offer students an idea/clue as to whether they’re emotionally suited for the immense responsibility and strains of parenthood.

It would also teach how children's mind/emotional development begins as early as gestation. Inside the womb, children are already aware of their mother’s emotions — and perhaps even later emotionally damaged by them:

“When a mother both consciously and subconsciously wanted to be pregnant and welcomed her baby, the child thrived. When the mother either consciously or subconsciously wanted the baby, the child was fine. When the mother neither consciously nor subconsciously wanted the baby, the child felt the effects of this hostile emotional climate. I remember a story of a woman who not only didn't want her baby but also resented his intrusive presence in her body.

"When the Italian doctor would use an ultrasound to view the baby as the mother talked about her resentments of him and the pregnancy, the baby would curl up in a tiny ball in a corner of the uterus, trying to make himself very small. Even in-utero, a baby can feel the power of his/her mother's heart. When considering having children, making a thoughtful, heartful, integrated decision is important for the overall wellbeing of a child.”

Source website: http://www.healingheartpower.com/power-heart.html [Linda Marks, 2003]
FrankGSterleJr
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:41 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by FrankGSterleJr »

Walker wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 9:04 am In the US, the latest hot-media news to distract from Brandon's incompetence both foreign and domestic is: someone leaked internal SCOTUS deliberations that are about overturning Roe vs. Wade's status as a US Constitutional right.

It's the first time leaking to the press has been applied to the SCOTUS.

Leftists do know how to get ahead of the narrative and direct attention with shiny, noisy things. Since Nixon, leaking is an effective tactic.

The speculation is that a clerk leaked the info. Sure ... as if the justices are above such shenanigans.
_________


The SCOTUS 2022 ruling on abortion rights would not be the first, and likely not the last, instance of judicial activism. Indeed, many Americans feel that the original Roe V. Wade ruling was itself judicial activism.

For example, in the early 1990s, the Supreme Court of Canada's judges apparently mixed their personal ideology with a verdict that split along gender lines.

The case involved a complaint filed by some prisoners at a male-inmate facility in regards to the institution’s allowance of female guards to invade the male inmates’ privacy; this, while female-inmate facilities disallowed male guards from invading female inmates’ privacy.

It was a no-brainer double-standard that commentators had stated would likely not be allowed to stand — yet it did, thanks to the five female judges outweighing the four male justices!

The reasoning behind that 5-4 judgment was essentially that, disallowing female guards in the male-inmate facilities would hinder employment opportunities for female guards in a male-dominated profession.

It was a disgraceful gender-political ruling, one that corrupted what should’ve been a case of a blatant double-standard injustice for the male-inmate plaintiffs requiring immediate rectification. One metro-daily newspaper’s editorial cartoon even mocked the court for its decision, suggesting the decision was "not half assed" but rather “wholly assed”.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by iambiguous »

To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the hypocrisy, stupid."


MAUREEN DOWD
Donald and Herschel: The Unholy Alliance

WASHINGTON — This will sound quaint.

In May 2016, The Washington Post ran the story of how Donald Trump, in his real estate days, would call reporters, pretending to be his own spokesman, to brag and leak nuggets about nonexistent romances with famous women. I thought that would knock him out of the race.

The story hit on a Friday, so I scrambled to rewrite my column on the assumption that Trump wouldn’t last the weekend.

But the scoop didn’t make a dent.

The next day, The Times splashed a piece on the front page reporting that dozens of women had accused Trump of “unwelcome romantic advances” and lewd and “unending commentary on the female form.”

Again, he emerged unscathed with his base.

I still didn’t learn my lesson, though. That October, when the “Access Hollywood” tape showed Trump yucking it up about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women, noting that “when you’re a star, they let you do it,” I once more figured he couldn’t survive as leader of the party of “family values” and the religious right.

He could.

Once, there were limits, things that could disqualify you from office, especially in the party that claimed a special relationship with Jesus.

But those limits don’t exist anymore.

Conservatives have sacrificed any claim to principle. In an unholy transaction, they stuck with Trump because there was a Supreme Court seat and they were willing to tolerate his moral void in order to hijack the court. They didn’t care how he treated women as long as he gave them the opportunity to rip away rights from women. They wanted to impose their warped morality, a “Handmaid’s Tale” world, on the rest of us.

Christian-right leaders made clear that, no matter what Trump said or did to women, he was preferable to Hillary Clinton, who supported abortion rights.

As Jerry Falwell Jr. said at the time, “We’re never going to have a perfect candidate unless Jesus Christ is on the ballot,” noting, “We’re all sinners.”

Well, Falwell certainly was. Four years later, he was ousted from running Liberty University after a sex scandal of his own.

Now, in Georgia, conservatives are turning a blind eye to sordid stories coming out about Herschel Walker, who demonstrates no qualifications for serving in the Senate. His sole credential is that he was once excellent at carrying a football.

Story after story has emerged about reprehensible behavior and lies concerning women and children, and about falsifying his personal history.

The Daily Beast asserted that while Walker wants to completely ban abortion, even in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, comparing it to murder, he paid for a girlfriend’s abortion in 2009. Walker has called the story “a flat-out lie,” but The Beast talked to the unnamed woman and checked her financial records. She said she was just sick of the hypocrisy. Even his conservative influencer son, Christian, disparaged his father’s “lies” on Twitter.

On Friday, The Times published a story confirming The Daily Beast’s reporting, and in a startling development added that in 2011, Herschel pressured the same woman to have another abortion. They ended their relationship when she refused; she had their son, now 10.

There’s more: His ex-wife claimed he pointed a pistol at her head and told her he was going to blow her brains out; he has four children with four different women, but hadn’t publicly acknowledged three of them. His 10-year-old was one of those hidden.

Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans should be ashamed to promote this troubled person for their own benefit.

Privately, some Republicans are mortified by the Walker spiral, but they’re going to brazen it out for the win.

Dana Loesch, the right-wing radio host, was blunt: “I don’t care if Herschel Walker paid to abort endangered baby eagles. I want control of the Senate.”

Republicans have exposed their willingness to accept anything to get power that they then abuse. As Lindsey Graham said out loud, with his fellow Republicans shushing him, they want a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks. And Herschel Walker is key to that.

Trump got to know Walker when he bought the New Jersey Generals in 1983, which Walker had joined after he won the Heisman Trophy and dropped out of the University of Georgia to turn pro.

“In a lot of ways, Mr. Trump became a mentor to me,” Walker wrote in his memoir in 2008, “and I modeled myself and my business practices after him.” Trump led the cry “Run, Herschel, run!”

Walker takes after his mentor with his lies, hypocrisy and know-nothingness on issues. Still worse, he’s following his mentor by denying his transgressions as a womanizer, even as he tries to smash women’s rights.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Agent Smith »

If a catastrophe could've been prevented, you don't get credit for cleaning up afterwards.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by iambiguous »

From ILP:
Magnus Anderson wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Well, my John, while not religious, did believe the unborn were human beings and that aborting them was murdering them. My Mary believed that there was just a "clump of cells" in her womb...she practiced safe sex, got pregnant anyway, did not want to be pregnant, and, being a hardcore leftist, was fiercely pro-choice, embracing "my body/myself" and arguing that forcing women to give birth was inherently patriarchal. If not misogynistic.

Now, my point in particular is that both John and Mary, like the rest of us, come to acquire value judgments existentially given the points I raise on this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 .

And not because, philosophically or otherwise, human beings in a No God world are able to "think up" the most rational and virtuous point of view. The "wisest", most deontologically sound resolution of them all.

After all, why your own or my own assessment and not the conclusions come to by one of these -- https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ ... ideologies -- folks instead?
Alright, that's a step forward. But it's worth noting it's merely the beginning.

What does John mean by "murder"? Does he mean "the unlawful killing of a human being by another"? If so, was there a law that prohibited the killing of unborn babies at the time? And if he means something else, e.g. "the killing of a human being by another that should be illegal", why does he think that killing an unborn baby should be illegal?

As for Mary, why does she think that her unborn baby is merely a "clump of cells"? Based on what? And is it really important? Is it really necessary for John's argument to rely on the premise that unborn babies are human beings? Finally, is John forcing Mary to give birth or is he merely trying to convince her that she shouldn't abort? If he's merely trying to convince her, why is she accusing him of using force and of hating women? Isn't that a bit of an overreaction?
You miss the point of course. Mine for example. It's not that John thinks abortion is the murder of a human being or that Mary thinks it is just a clump of cells. It's not what John or Mary or you and I think about the morality of abortion, it's these two things...

1] How do the at times vastly different historical and cultural and personal contexts into which we are "thrown" at birth, and from which our first experiences are derived, resulting in years in which we are indoctrinated to think what others think about abortion...impact our point of view here and now?

2] Given these vast and varied personal experiences, is it then possible for philosophers to arrive at the optimal or the only rational manner in which reasonable and moral men and women are deontologically obligated to react to any particular abortion that they become a part of one way or another?

Even in regard to the unborn embryo/fetus itself there has never been a definitive scientific/philosophical conclusion reached as to when it becomes an actual human being. From the point of conception on there are any number of "dividing lines".

And murder is a legal term. That's part of the either/or world. It is either a crime to abort in any particular jurisdiction or it is not.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Abortion

Post by Lacewing »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 7:06 pm 1] How do the at times vastly different historical and cultural and personal contexts into which we are "thrown" at birth, and from which our first experiences are derived, resulting in years in which we are indoctrinated to think what others think about abortion...impact our point of view here and now?
Greatly. Some are brainwashed by limitation and superstition, and it could be said that creating laws that force such onto other people is abusive. There are so many ways we all come into this world and see from different perspectives. It is simply not for any particular people to dictate.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 7:06 pm2] Given these vast and varied personal experiences, is it then possible for philosophers to arrive at the optimal or the only rational manner in which reasonable and moral men and women are deontologically obligated to react to any particular abortion that they become a part of one way or another?
I don't think so. Rather than fruitlessly seeking an answer that applies to all, we can be challenging/questioning all such supposed answers exactly because the possibilities are actually so vast. If we think that there is or must be only one way or one truth, we completely limit all of life/potential to just that, which is clearly absurd considering all that (even) we can see and understand from the greater collective of us all.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Abortion

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:43 am
Walker wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:40 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:31 am
Property is property. My car, my house, my bed, my gun, etc.
That takes you right back to my body my choice.

:lol:
Yes, it does. My body, my choice (which does not include the baby in your womb [he's attached to you but is not part of you]).
Why then do you call 'it', "My child"?

Obviously if 'it' is 'yours', and 'your' property, as the word 'my' in 'my child's implies and infers, then according to 'your' previous claims and "logic" "henry quirk", then ANY one who has or owns a child can do absolutely ANY thing with 'it', including the aborting if one's OWN child/fetus/person, or whatever one wants to call 'it', growing within a womb.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by commonsense »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:43 am
Walker wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:40 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:31 am
Property is property. My car, my house, my bed, my gun, etc.
That takes you right back to my body my choice.

:lol:
Yes, it does. My body, my choice (which does not include the baby in your womb [he's attached to you but is not part of you]).
But that “baby in your womb”, though not a part of you, is your “baby”. It isn’t independent, that’s for sure. And it doesn’t belong to someone other than the woman who supports it.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by commonsense »

Agent Smith wrote: Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:55 am If a catastrophe could've been prevented, you don't get credit for cleaning up afterwards.
Nice trope, but under scrutiny it’s only non sequitor.

Yes, you don’t deserve credit for preventing the catastrophe. But the facts being what they are, you may deserve credit for the clean-up.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Abortion

Post by henry quirk »

commonsense wrote: Mon Dec 26, 2022 10:49 pmBut that “baby in your womb”, though not a part of you, is your “baby”.
Yep. My 16 year old is mine. Now, do you think I mean this as he is my possession, or he is my responsibility?
It isn’t independent, that’s for sure.
No more or less than I'll be as a very old, bed-ridden, man.
And it doesn’t belong to someone other than the woman who supports it.
Before I comment on this segment, I need to know which you think I mean: he is my possession, or he is my responsibility?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Abortion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=RWStanding post_id=570391 time=1651559029 user_id=13021]
There can be no doubt that abortion would remain permissible and essential to save life, where life is in danger.
[/quote]

Not so. The argument that the mother already had her time and should be the one to die rather than the fetus, cannot merely be shrugged off.

The only level at which there's no doubt is when Both their lives are at risk. In the issue of abortion there is Always a life at stake.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Abortion

Post by Harbal »

Advocate wrote: Tue Dec 27, 2022 2:54 pm Not so. The argument that the mother already had her time and should be the one to die rather than the fetus, cannot merely be shrugged off.
It certainly should not be shrugged off. If such an argument is presented to the mother, she should assault the source of it with whatever blunt instrument is at hand.
Post Reply