Can we compromise on abortion?

[fantome profane]

I think the baby/fetus also has the rights of personhood.

What are the “rights of personhood”?

I suspect that even if I agreed that a baby/fetus has such rights, I think I would disagree about what that means.

No person has the right to use the organs of another person. No person has the right to live inside another persons body.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Always honest....

I think the baby/fetus also has the rights of personhood.

You think that they have more rights than an actual person, apparently.

Either that or you don't support the idea that bodily autonomy is a right. Which is it?

Or not feed them at all as a "right of personhood" by your definition.

Well, no. Sounds like you don't understand what bodily autonomy entails.

Bodily autonomy doesn't mean you never have to do anything that requires physical effort; it means that the integrity of your body can't be violated. It means that your consent is needed for people to place things in your body, remove things from your body, or use your organs, tissue, or fluids.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What are the “rights of personhood”?

I suspect that even if I agreed that a baby/fetus has such rights, I think I would disagree about what that means.

No person has the right to use the organs of another person. No person has the right to live inside another persons body.

I find it interesting that, if anything, "personhood of the fetus" arguments actually strengthen the bodily autonomy argument.

If the fetus isn't a person in its own right and is instead just part of the pregnant person's body, then bodily autonomy doesn't apply. We wouldn't have any real reason to object to an abortion, but we also wouldn't have grounds to say that abortion is an imperative and an issue of fundamental rights. There's no inherent right to body modification.

 

[Kenny]

Why am I an example as that post was with a discussion that I wasn't a participant in?

lol... not you... I tried to fix it. It's my age... she is trying to fix me too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm still wondering how you get "the Bible" in what we are talking about. Are you dealing with your conscience?

What differentiates a person from another, scientifically?

You can apply that same standard to a 131 day baby/fetus and realize they are exactly the same. Do you have a different viewpoint of what a person is?

Being a person is an emergent property. There is no clear line. But the claim that it is a person, which you cannot support, is largely a red herring. That is not the ultimate reason that abortions need to be legal.

Until you are willing to allow some stranger to be attached to you for nine months so that you can share your kidneys, even though that is against your will, your arguments will fail.

 

[fantome profane]

Being a person is an emergent property. There is no clear line.

For legal purposes I think the point is at birth.

But as for really becoming a person, I know people in their 70's who are still working on it.

 

[crossfire]

OK, you keep posting "compromise", but I haven't seen your compromise? Maybe I missed it?

Read: moving the goalposts.

 

[Kenny]

You think that they have more rights than an actual person, apparently.

Either that or you don't support the idea that bodily autonomy is a right. Which is it?

LOL... Apparently you have no supportive documentation to support that position.

Well, no. Sounds like you don't understand what bodily autonomy entails.

Bodily autonomy doesn't mean you never have to do anything that requires physical effort; it means that the integrity of your body can't be violated. It means that your consent is needed for people to place things in your body, remove things from your body, or use your organs, tissue, or fluids.

Tell that to the parents who are exhausted because of a colic baby. And when you decide to have a baby/fetus, you have given them the right to use your body. You are basically saying that if you invite someone into a restaurant, you can't use the bathroom. Your logic is quite amazing.

 

[Kenny]

Until you are willing to allow some stranger to be attached to you for nine months so that you can share your kidneys, even though that is against your will, your arguments will fail.

I think logic can equally say, "If you invite a sperm into your body by virtue of your will, you invite the new baby/fetus to enjoy the house you are naturally providing.

The logic here that the two of you are giving, leaves me dumbfounded.

Next, you will be equating the baby/fetus as a parasite because it isn't wanted. IMV

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think logic can equally say, "If you invite a sperm into your body by virtue of your will, you invite the new baby/fetus to enjoy the house you are naturally providing.

The logic here that the two of you are giving, leaves me dumbfounded.

Next, you will be equating the baby/fetus as a parasite because it isn't wanted. IMV

Sorry, but that is far from "logical". That is just your own false standards. You might as well say that when one drives one's car one is asking for an accident so nothing should be able to be done for them. After all, there is a distinct odds of getting into an accident every time that you drive. You obviously asked for the damage to your car and your body if an accident happens.

That is why your 'logic" fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL... Apparently you have no supportive documentation to support that position.


Tell that to the parents who are exhausted because of a colic baby. And when you decide to have a baby/fetus, you have given them the right to use your body. You are basically saying that if you invite someone into a restaurant, you can't use the bathroom. Your logic is quite amazing.

Having sex is not an invitation to be pregnant. It can happen. Once again, the car accident analogy shows the error of that sort of "reasoning".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think logic can equally say, "If you invite a sperm into your body by virtue of your will, you invite the new baby/fetus to enjoy the house you are naturally providing.

If you're comfortable with using the "logic" of a rapist, consider how this reflects on your character.

Consent for one thing - e.g. sex - isn't consent for anything else - e.g. pregnancy, and consent once given can be withdrawn.

 

[Heyo]

I don't know what exactly you mean by "pretty alone". I agree with @9-10ths_Penguin on this point. And I think there is a decent percentage of people who would agree.

But it should not matter how many there are.

Maybe not. I'll come back to that later. Give me some slack. I have to do a mental 180 and now defend the rights of the fetus.

If you say so.



There are a few of us, but yes: there are lots of people willing to give pregnant people less than the full rights of personhood.

I'll give them the rights and plenty time to make a decision. But at some point, around 22 to 24 weeks the fetus should have rights also, it is a sentient human being then (though not a person).

I'm one of those people, too. Anyone, at any time, should be able to end their pregnancy, including third trimester which is where a lot of women like me find out they are pregnant due to irregular hormones, weight fluctuation and metabolic issues masking pregnancy. But if past the point of viability, should be ended with induced birth or cesarian unless it poses risk to the mother or there's significant fetal health complications. But that should be left to the discretion of the doctors, not the legislators. As questions on fetal and mother health has lead to death by doctor negligence on several occasions. Doctors should not have legislators breathing down their neck determining when the abortion was 'medically necessary.'

How many women like you are there? For the average woman it should be no problem to make a decision and arrange for an abortion between the time they know they are pregnant and the 20th week.


My arguments for a 20 week ban on abortion are:

Moral, as pointed out to @9-10ths_Penguin. A sentient human being should have a right to be defended from harm. We grant such right to non human animals, we should grant it to humans.

Practical/political. In the current climate it is not wise to play "all-or-nothing". I haven't debated pro abortionists before since it were mostly the religious fanatics who were the extremists. I always thought that the pro choice side was the reasonable one and ready to talk and compromise. The hard stance for no laws at all is necessary to show the pro birthers where the ones are who they need to compromise with but it shouldn't be an unshakeable position.

 

[crossfire]

For legal purposes I think the point is at birth.

But as for really becoming a person, I know people in their 70's who are still working on it.

The unborn are not counted in the census, which counts persons, for example.

 

[Kenny]

If you're comfortable with using the "logic" of a rapist, consider how this reflects on your character.

Consent for one thing - e.g. sex - isn't consent for anything else - e.g. pregnancy, and consent once given can be withdrawn.

Apparently, you have a need to understand sentence structure. When is a woman "inviting" in a rape? Either you have a comprehension problem or it is you that needs to consider on how it reflects on your character.

 

[Kenny]

So I rest my case on @Subduction Zone and @9-10ths_Penguin as good examples of why compromise becomes impossible by virtue of all their responses. @Heyo is a good example on how dialogue and compromise can move things forward even though we have differences of viewpoints.

 

[Heyo]

So I rest my case on @Subduction Zone and @9-10ths_Penguin as good examples of why compromise becomes impossible by virtue of all their responses. @Heyo is a good example on how dialogue and compromise can move things forward even though we have differences of viewpoints.

:friendly:

 

[Ponder This]

And here is an example of the unreasonableness that I just mentioned. The percentage of third trimester abortions are extremely low. By the time that the fetus has even a reasonable chance of surviving the percentage of all abortions is less than 1%. And once again, most of those are medically necessary. The burden of proof should be upon those trying to interfere with the lives of others. But since they cannot meet that burden the try to argue that a complete ban is moral. That is far less moral than free abortions for anyone at any time in one's pregnancy.

It does look like the trend includes banning third trimester abortions (with exceptions for things like danger to the mother), but I don't understand your argument yet. Are you arguing that third trimester abortions specifically shouldn't be banned because they are only 1% of abortions or are you using 1% of abortions to argue that no abortions should be banned in any trimester? Both arguments seem a bit shakey. Also, you talk about a burden of proof. What is the statement that you are claiming necessitates a proof?

By the way, Roe v Wade still allowed states to ban abortions after the time of viability. So how was the ruling "bad' in any sense at all? It was still a sound ruling that would be active today if certain judges had not lied during their interviews before Congress.

As you can probably see, there is a debate about abortions before the time of viability as well as after the time of viability. Roe vs Wade was bad because it was legislation from the bench and because it was the wrong outcome. The scope of Roe vs Wade has had to be continually narrowed again and again by subsequent rulings until, finally, it had to be overturned. Even Ginsburg said the Roe vs Wade ruling was bad. I don't know what your argument is about judges lying before Congress - a google search indicates that AoC accused judges of lying before Congress, but it seems to be political theatre on her part. I would prefer to hear arguments about the reasonableness/unreasonableness of abortion legislation rather than engaging in pointless polarization. What would a reasonable, moral abortion law look like?

So far it looks like you think that third trimester abortion bans are unreasonable and yet third trimester abortion bans were already common both before and after Roe vs Wade, which you declared to be a "sound ruling". What's changed in the wake of the Dobbs decision that leads you to argue against third trimester abortion bans?

 

[fantome profane]

So I rest my case on @Subduction Zone and @9-10ths_Penguin as good examples of why compromise becomes impossible by virtue of all their responses. @Heyo is a good example on how dialogue and compromise can move things forward even though we have differences of viewpoints.

When things are moving in the direction of oppression I don't think we should be trying to move things "forward".

I want to to thank @Subduction Zone and @9-10ths_Penguin for what they have done to make compromise on this issue impossible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does look like the trend includes banning third trimester abortions (with exceptions for things like danger to the mother), but I don't understand your argument yet. Are you arguing that third trimester abortions specifically shouldn't be banned because they are only 1% of abortions or are you using 1% of abortions to argue that no abortions should be banned in any trimester? Both arguments seem a bit shakey. Also, you talk about a burden of proof. What is the statement that you are claiming necessitates a proof?

The point was that third trimester abortions are not a real problem. By the 22 week, the earliest of any reasonable expectation of "viability" and even that is pressing it since without extreme actions a preemie born in such a short gestation will die, the women that were going for abortion on demand have already had their abortion. Women that keep their pregnancies going that long want to go full term and have a baby. What we see instead is that immoral antiabortion jerks will try to make it harder for women that need an abortion to have one than is necessary.

Since money can wait, but a needed abortion cannot my compromise adds the fact that such abortions are very expensive as a deterrent The net result would guarantee that those that need an abortion could still get them and the very very very few that were going for abortion on demand would have another level of deterrent added. One could probably even show that more women's lives would be saved than viable fetuses would be lost. That should satisfy anyone that is truly "prolife".

As you can probably see, there is a debate about abortions before the time of viability as well as after the time of viability. Roe vs Wade was bad because it was legislation from the bench and because it was the wrong outcome. The scope of Roe vs Wade has had to be continually narrowed again and again by subsequent rulings until, finally, it had to be overturned. Even Ginsburg said the Roe vs Wade ruling was bad. I don't know what your argument is about judges lying before Congress - a google search indicates that AoC accused judges of lying before Congress, but it seems to be political theatre on her part. I would prefer to hear arguments about the reasonableness/unreasonableness of abortion legislation rather than engaging in pointless polarization. What would a reasonable, moral abortion law look like?

So far it looks like you think that third trimester abortion bans are unreasonable and yet third trimester abortion bans were already common both before and after Roe vs Wade, which you declared to be a "sound ruling". What's changed in the wake of the Dobbs decision that leads you to argue against third trimester abortion bans?

No, there was no valid reason to overturn Roe v Wade. It was not a matter of reducing its scope. A more than reasonable compromise had already been worked out. And to call it a "debate" is an exaggeration as well. As you can see in this thread there is no proper debate. Those opposing abortion have failed at all levels They just refuse to see it.

Also if you do not know what has happened in this debate why don't you go back and learn the basics? i am pretty sure that all of the Supreme Court judges, except for perhaps Clarence, all agreed that Roe v Wade was settled law when they were interviewed by Congress. They lied. If the lying judges were honest they would have have been on the court Honesty would have led to the Democrats using filibusters and other means to avoid them being placed on the bench. They knew that and that was why they lied.

As to "what changed". Nothing changed. The statistics are just clearer now perhaps. We can see that abortions after viability are not problem. They probably never were.