American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[PsYcNeT]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1540852015693037568

[Harry Lime]

So they make abortion illegal, make it difficult to prosecute sexual assault in legacy cases more than a couple years removed from the incident, and make it easier to become an American citizen if your child is already a citizen.

Did they just make rape tourism a viable path for immigration?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

No.
(unless it's baby hitler and u have a time machine I should edit that in)
Now want to try my question finally?

So you admit there is a spectrum where at some point it’s okay to murder a toddler.
So where is that line?
Why won’t you engage in honest discussion about when exactly you think toddlercide is okay?

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

https://twitter.com/user/status/1540852015693037568

That is amazingly stupid for anyone other than Trump himself to say that.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So you admit there is a spectrum where at some point it’s okay to murder a toddler.
So where is that line?
Why won’t you engage in honest discussion about when exactly you think toddlercide is okay?

Time travel to prevent genocide. That's probably it.

[FlamesAddiction]

I love how they are proud to call themselves "MAGA Patriots". It reminds me of the Rick and Morty episode with the Nazi and one character says, "We have a word for people like you", and the Nazi replies, "What? I am already comfortable being called a Nazi, do you think there is another word that will hurt my feelings".

[Snuffleupagus]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1540811792032550912

[FlamesAddiction]

I am actually fine with people believing abortion is morally wrong. Religion aside, you can find scientists that say life begins at conception. Whether or not it is "human life" or just "potential human life", and whether or not ending potential human life is morally different is a philosophical argument that doesn't have a right or wrong answer. Heck, whether or not ending a human life is morally wrong is a philosophical question, not a scientific one, and we have laws against that.

I am pro-choice though. Nothing forces anyone to have an abortion, so if someone thinks it is morally wrong, they are free to not have abortions.

[psyang]

While I know this is a sensitive topic, I would like to ask a genuine question as it's something I am wrestling with myself. I suspect it may not be a ground breaking question for many, but coming from a very religious background, I'm trying to reason about abortion keeping the idea that the fetus (at some point in the pregnancy) is a living person at the forefront.

I don't think anyone will be able to answer the question of when life really begins for a fetus. So instead I'm trying to frame the question differently, though maybe it's really the same thing?:

Does the fetus have rights at all at any time before birth? And if so, are those rights always secondary to the mother's?

My thinking right now is that the answer should be yes to both questions.

Regarding the first part of the question- I think there is general agreement that very late-stage abortions that are not due to medical/health issues (for either fetus or mother) are not supported. Usually the scenario is met with the idea that "it would never happen", and I tend to agree. But it infers that the late-stage fetus is in some way an actual individual with some semblance of rights. Otherwise, would you support a late-stage abortion for any reason, regardless of how superficial?

Regarding the second part of the question, my thinking is that there is general agreement that, should the pregnancy (at whatever stage) be life-threatening to the mother, and the only way to preserve the mother's life is abortion, then abortion is deemed acceptable. However, if we've established from the first the question that, at some point, the fetus is a person with rights, then the only logical conclusion is that the mother's rights trump the fetus's rights. Consider the opposite scenario - where the fetus (during the stage when it has rights) has its life in danger, and the only way to preserve the fetus is to kill the mother (maybe perform surgery that, because of the mother's condition, would kill her). Would the fetus's life ever be preserved in such a scenario without the mother's consent?

Does this reasoning make sense? I'm interest to hear other perspectives.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Time travel to prevent genocide. That's probably it.

Much like the abortion debate, you're merely looking to treat symptoms and not the root cause of the problem.

Take your "Murder Baby Hitler = Preventing Genocide" example.

Considering the conditions of Europe at the time and the fact that there were no shortage of Murderous ideologues and sycophants skulking about at the time, there is no way to think that murdering baby Hitler would have prevented anything other than making a particular style of moustache completely unusable for the rest of time.

Somebody else would more than likely have lit that same match.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Time travel to prevent genocide. That's probably it.

But you probably don’t need time travel in the future if you have mandatory vasectomies while ensuring that everyone had the ability to donate sperm so they can procreate in the future. I feel like I have found the solution for all your “legitimate” concerns.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by psyang

While I know this is a sensitive topic, I would like to ask a genuine question as it's something I am wrestling with myself. I suspect it may not be a ground breaking question for many, but coming from a very religious background, I'm trying to reason about abortion keeping the idea that the fetus (at some point in the pregnancy) is a living person at the forefront.

I don't think anyone will be able to answer the question of when life really begins for a fetus. So instead I'm trying to frame the question differently, though maybe it's really the same thing?:

Does the fetus have rights at all at any time before birth? And if so, are those rights always secondary to the mother's?

My thinking right now is that the answer should be yes to both questions.

Regarding the first part of the question- I think there is general agreement that very late-stage abortions that are not due to medical/health issues (for either fetus or mother) are not supported. Usually the scenario is met with the idea that "it would never happen", and I tend to agree. But it infers that the late-stage fetus is in some way an actual individual with some semblance of rights. Otherwise, would you support a late-stage abortion for any reason, regardless of how superficial?

Regarding the second part of the question, my thinking is that there is general agreement that, should the pregnancy (at whatever stage) be life-threatening to the mother, and the only way to preserve the mother's life is abortion, then abortion is deemed acceptable. However, if we've established from the first the question that, at some point, the fetus is a person with rights, then the only logical conclusion is that the mother's rights trump the fetus's rights. Consider the opposite scenario - where the fetus (during the stage when it has rights) has its life in danger, and the only way to preserve the fetus is to kill the mother (maybe perform surgery that, because of the mother's condition, would kill her). Would the fetus's life ever be preserved in such a scenario without the mother's consent?

Does this reasoning make sense? I'm interest to hear other perspectives.

That was more or less how abortion worked under Roe v. Wade. At the point that medical professionals determined that it was a viable potential life, they did not perform abortions unless the mother’s life was in danger.

[afc wimbledon]

The reality is 'god' aborts 30% of all potential lives on his own, there is no greater abortionist than God, mother nature also has created the ability to abort if conditions are not right for hundreds of creatures, the bible does not condemn abortion and statistically societies with abortion have vastly improved social and economic outcomes, reduced crime, poverty, better educational outcomes

And then theres the enviromental arguement, more people, more global warming+ more death in the long run

[GGG]

Originally Posted by psyang

While I know this is a sensitive topic, I would like to ask a genuine question as it's something I am wrestling with myself. I suspect it may not be a ground breaking question for many, but coming from a very religious background, I'm trying to reason about abortion keeping the idea that the fetus (at some point in the pregnancy) is a living person at the forefront.

I don't think anyone will be able to answer the question of when life really begins for a fetus. So instead I'm trying to frame the question differently, though maybe it's really the same thing?:

Does the fetus have rights at all at any time before birth? And if so, are those rights always secondary to the mother's?

My thinking right now is that the answer should be yes to both questions.

Regarding the first part of the question- I think there is general agreement that very late-stage abortions that are not due to medical/health issues (for either fetus or mother) are not supported. Usually the scenario is met with the idea that "it would never happen", and I tend to agree. But it infers that the late-stage fetus is in some way an actual individual with some semblance of rights. Otherwise, would you support a late-stage abortion for any reason, regardless of how superficial?

Regarding the second part of the question, my thinking is that there is general agreement that, should the pregnancy (at whatever stage) be life-threatening to the mother, and the only way to preserve the mother's life is abortion, then abortion is deemed acceptable. However, if we've established from the first the question that, at some point, the fetus is a person with rights, then the only logical conclusion is that the mother's rights trump the fetus's rights. Consider the opposite scenario - where the fetus (during the stage when it has rights) has its life in danger, and the only way to preserve the fetus is to kill the mother (maybe perform surgery that, because of the mother's condition, would kill her). Would the fetus's life ever be preserved in such a scenario without the mother's consent?

Does this reasoning make sense? I'm interest to hear other perspectives.

I think that’s why abortion is only ethical if you place body autonomy as the governing right. If bodily autonomy isn’t the governing right then every egg left unfertilized is murder. All ejaculate not intended for procreation is child abandonment

There is no agreeable or objectively ethical point where a human is human and should be protected.

The viable outside the womb argument really makes no sense as in the absense of intervention it becomes viable.

[Gemnoble]

Originally Posted by GGG

The viable outside the womb argument really makes no sense as in the absense of intervention it becomes viable.

I believe that fact is important to the debate. If it can survive outside the womb that makes it an individual and not a fetus.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Gemnoble

I believe that fact is important to the debate. If it can survive outside the womb that makes it an individual and not a fetus.

So what you are saying is that give enough time and scientific advancement abortion should be made illegal?

My supposition is that it’s only a matter of time before we can grow a baby in an artificial womb and transfer fertilized eggs into such a womb. Basing your ethics on the science of the day seems shortsighted.

Or perhaps it means that until about 12 years no fetus is viable outside the womb without intervention.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The reality is 'god' aborts 30% of all potential lives on his own, there is no greater abortionist than God, mother nature also has created the ability to abort if conditions are not right for hundreds of creatures, the bible does not condemn abortion and statistically societies with abortion have vastly improved social and economic outcomes, reduced crime, poverty, better educational outcomes

And then theres the enviromental arguement, more people, more global warming+ more death in the long run

God is and has always been pro-choice. Any argument against that is just wrong.!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The reality is 'god' aborts 30% of all potential lives on his own, there is no greater abortionist than God, mother nature also has created the ability to abort if conditions are not right for hundreds of creatures, the bible does not condemn abortion and statistically societies with abortion have vastly improved social and economic outcomes, reduced crime, poverty, better educational outcomes

And then theres the enviromental arguement, more people, more global warming+ more death in the long run

This is just a terrible argument. The argument that a fetus is a living thing deserving of protection is independent in any requirement for a creator.

Also the fact that biologically the body aborts non-viable pregnancies is also irrelevant.

The discussion around abortion has always been the ethics of a potentially viable life so the fact that the body deals with non-viable life in one way does not matter.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is just a terrible argument. The argument that a fetus is a living thing deserving of protection is independent in any requirement for a creator.

Also the fact that biologically the body aborts non-viable pregnancies is also irrelevant.

The discussion around abortion has always been the ethics of a potentially viable life so the fact that the body deals with non-viable life in one way does not matter.

But who do you prosecute if a pregnancy ends after the trigger period? God? A law is a law after all.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

But who do you prosecute if a pregnancy ends after the trigger period? God? A law is a law after all.

The crime is the intervention.

In the absence of an intervention there is no crime. I get the attraction of this argument. It’s fun to make fun of the motivating force for the pro-birthers.