Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[Guest Lobo]

But it begs the question, at what point does cabrito become just carne de cabra?  

When it poses a danger to the mother? 

[tantric superman 4667]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Don't bring cabrito into this. 

I'd like to think me and Judge Brett could to to Juarez, have some cabrito and a shit load of meskin beer, and talk calmly about penumbras.  But not too much beer cause then he'll start singing ZZ Top and talking about putas.

[DDD Dad 14325]

Mitch McConnell abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees specifically in order to add justices to the Court who would abolish Roe.
Do you think the Democrats in the Senate today would reform the filibuster to pass a statute to restore abortion rights?  Because I sure don't.

Well they don’t have a majority in the senate even with Kamala so it’s academic.

[StassneyHorn 6573]

34 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

But why?

I like spending my time arguing about things that won’t change anyone’s mind. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

If these damned aborted fetuses would stop breaking into my car, shooting up schools, running over Christmas parades, doing smash and grab robberies and camping under the overpasses of my beautiful city, I might give a shit.   Take care of the bird in your hand.  

Edited December 3, 2021 by Judge Roybeanbag

[CooterBrown 18003]

There are all humans.  An human egg is human.
 

By that logic, facials are genocide.

[Goofyboy 3269]

A fetus isn't a kid.
Even a goat fetus isn't a kid.

According to the forced birth group, they are.

[tantric superman 4667]

36 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

By that logic

It's not logic.  It's lexical semantics.  But the debate, at least in Roe, is whether the fetus is a "person" under the Constitution.  Barring a statue with the term "human" being involved in the specific case, it's irrelevant. 

Much like the discussion of viability above, this activist court could find that because of science and medical developments, or whatever the fuck they come up with, that the fetus is a person. 

We can talk about definitions all day, but when Roe is overruled, this court is simply saying to the pregnant female:

"The fetus is a person too.   So fuck you, whore."

Something that you can imagine Judge Brett, Judge Sam and Judge Clarence champing at the bit to say.

[Anastasis 23459]

10 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Barring a statue with the term "human" being involved in the specific case, it's irrelevant.

I love y'all lawyers. 

[workswithseed 2088]

11 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

It's not logic.  It's lexical semantics.  But the debate, at least in Roe, is whether the fetus is a "person" under the Constitution.  Barring a statue with the term "human" being involved in the specific case, it's irrelevant. 

Much like the discussion of viability above, this activist court could find that because of science and medical developments, or whatever the fuck they come up with, that the fetus is a person. 

We can talk about definitions all day, but when Roe is overruled, this court is simply saying to the pregnant female:

"The fetus is a person too.   So fuck you, whore."

Something that you can imagine Judge Brett, Judge Sam and Judge Clarence champing at the bit to say.

If we kill all fetuses at your determined time when they're not human, are we not eradicating the human race? 

It seems under your thought process, it would be okay legally because they're not really human yet.

[Guest Lobo]

The only time the U.S. Constitution chimed in on what constituted a human being, it decided black people were 3/5ths of one.  Forgive me if I don't put a lot of faith in their scientific definition of when a fetus becomes 3/5ths of a human, or a whole human being for that matter.  (FWIW---I am morally opposed to many, but not all abortions)

[High Plains Drifter 11028]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

If we kill all fetuses at your determined time when they're not human, are we not eradicating the human race? 

It seems under your thought process, it would be okay legally because they're not really human yet.

 

shh, the adults are having a conversation.

 

[Smax 3800]

LOL.  It's hard to parse out of the CDC data. Maybe a better area to consider is number of abortions that have been preceded by 2 or more abortions. That number is conservatively (due to reporting issues) ~ 100k. Reasonable people should be able to agree that that those kind of statistics are unacceptable in a modern society. Nobody should feel comfortable with that. 

100k a year or a million a year, doesn't bother me one bit and I contributed to that number a few years ago and again this year.

I just cant wrap my head around the audacity some have to impose their will on other adults, I don't understand it one bit. And that doesnt even approach the fact that forcing someone who doesnt want to have a child, to have it. Nothing says christianity like forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted child. Im sure it grow up into a stable productive member of society

Heres an idea for the religious right, go adopt. States are overrun at the moment with children no one wants, how about you guys focus all this energy on finding homes for them, take them in yourself, that is the christian thing to do.

[workswithseed 2088]

3 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

shh, the adults are having a conversation.

 

Oh, you better leave then.

 

[Anastasis 23459]

16 minutes ago, Lobo said:

The only time the U.S. Constitution chimed in on what constituted a human being, it decided black people were 3/5ths of one.  Forgive me if I don't put a lot of faith in their scientific definition of when a fetus becomes 3/5ths of a human, or a whole human being for that matter.  (FWIW---I am morally opposed to many, but not all abortions)

The3/5 compromise had nothing to do with what constituted a human life.  It involved a legal definition of what defined a "person". The former is clearly the realm of science.  The latter, lawyers (and relatedly philosophers). Don't confuse the shifting sands around "personhood" with the innate nature of a human life. The legal arguments usually end up with a focus on who to exclude from the definition. And we end up with box cars full of people on their way to gas chambers.  

Edited December 3, 2021 by Anastasis

[tantric superman 4667]

15 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

If we kill all fetuses at your determined time when they're not human, are we not eradicating the human race? 

It seems under your thought process, it would be okay legally because they're not really human yet.

Post 606.

Posting -- not your strong suit.

[tantric superman 4667]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Don't confuse the shifting sands around "personhood" with the innate nature of a human life.

Innate nature of human life.

Innate meaning the "nature of", I guess you are trying to say the "natural nature of human life".

Human, of course, is an adjective, as well as a noun.  The term "human" is no less philosophical or more scientific than "person".

If you would like to discuss the scientific attributes of homo sapiens, well, then that might be a nice taxonomic endeavor and perhaps more biologic than philosophical.

But I don't think you score any points with some distinction between "human" and "person" in the realm of trying to define what the Constitution means.  Especially when you muddy the waters by trying to claim that people are fighting about the definition of "personhood".

Number of times Human is mentioned in the Constitution and Amendments = 0

Number of times Personhood is mentioned in the Constitution and Amendments = 0

Number of times Person is mentioned in the Constitution and Amendments = 44

Definition of Person = Human Being

Anyone who is trying to inject arguments about the definitions of "personhood" or "human" into this debate is the one who is trying to inject shifting sands into the discussion.

[jimmyjazz 45887]

30 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The3/5 compromise had nothing to do with what constituted a human life.  It involved a legal definition of what defined a "person". The former is clearly the realm of science.  The latter, lawyers (and relatedly philosophers). Don't confuse the shifting sands around "personhood" with the innate nature of a human life. The legal arguments usually end up with a focus on who to exclude from the definition. And we end up with box cars full of people on their way to gas chambers.  

LMFAO.

At least you're inching closer to your true self.  Diminishing the value of a negro was simply a legal construct, a philosophical exercise, and by extension was far less onerous in terms of restricting the rights of a walking, talking human being as compared to those of an unviable fetus.  At least most of them are no longer growing in the womb of rape victims.  Yes, massuh'.

[tantric superman 4667]

29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The3/5 compromise had nothing to do with what constituted a human life.  It involved a legal definition of what defined a "person"

And, if one reads that section of the Constitution, one clearly understands why it's ludicrous to think that the authors would have remotely considered counting fetuses as humans.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

And you'll note that in Lobo's post which you were responding to, he refers to 3/5 of a human being.  Which is a essentially the definition of "person".  Thus the US Constitution says exactly what Lobo said it says.  That blacks were 3/5 of a person - a human being.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2663]

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The3/5 compromise had nothing to do with what constituted a human life.  It involved a legal definition of what defined a "person". The former is clearly the realm of science.  The latter, lawyers (and relatedly philosophers). Don't confuse the shifting sands around "personhood" with the innate nature of a human life. The legal arguments usually end up with a focus on who to exclude from the definition. And we end up with box cars full of people on their way to gas chambers.  

Literally zero of any of this balancing of rights or burden conversation has taken into account that women are the only ones to bear the burden of pregnancy and the actual burden of parenting, due to being the carrier. The disparate impact hasn't even been alluded to. Just interesting to me.

[Anastasis 23459]

Human life is pretty straightforward to define from a biological sciences perspective. 

Life, as a general concept, is as well.

Person, personhood, etc. are philosophical terms and then we start getting into debates over existential vs. relational constructs as they relate to the human species. That's why lawyers in the 18th century were successful in codifying that certain humans were only 3/5's of a person. And some people today insist that certain humans are 0/5's of a person. 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Anastasis

[safe sex 11696]

Forget it, I don't even want to start

Edited December 3, 2021 by trauma babe
what was I even thinking

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

4 hours ago, Anastasis said:

LOL.  It's hard to parse out of the CDC data. Maybe a better area to consider is number of abortions that have been preceded by 2 or more abortions. That number is conservatively (due to reporting issues) ~ 100k. Reasonable people should be able to agree that that those kind of statistics are unacceptable in a modern society. Nobody should feel comfortable with that. 

It is certainly a convenient framework for an argument to state that "reasonable people should be able to agree...". I think I'm a reasonable person and I would definitely say that I think a reasonable person should be able to agree that a woman should not have to be forced to support a growing mass of tissue in her body. You will clearly disagree. Ergo you are unreasonable.

[Neonmoon 38129]

I can’t wait until women who have miscarriages are charged with murder. 

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

4 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

By that logic, facials are genocide.

Every sperm is sacred. 

[Willfully Horn 8001]

Abortion ought be protected under the Ninth Amendment, @TwiceHorn. Women have been ending pregnancies for four thousand years.

If that doesn’t meet the definition of an unenumerated right, wtf does?

(Thanks for your explanation. No vitriol for the messenger intended). 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Phrasing

[workswithseed 2088]

8 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Abortion ought be protected under the Ninth Amendment, @TwiceHorn. Women have been ending pregnancies for four thousand years.

If that doesn’t meet the definition of an unenumerated right, wtf does?

(Thanks for your explanation. No vitriol for the messenger intended). 

Slavery has happened for 1000s of years, is that an unenumerated right? 

That's not a good argument.

[Willfully Horn 8001]

17 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Slavery has happened for 1000s of years, is that an unenumerated right? 

That's not a good argument.

At no point ever has slavery not been contested and vilified. Abortion opponents cropped up in the US two hundred year ago, to the year. Among the first civilization ever to practice chattel slavery. And abortion came over with the Vikings where it met itself in the Native culture.

My question is about unenumerated rights guaranteed in the Ninth. Slavery was talked, and written, about its whole existence. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Word choice

[workswithseed 2088]

8 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

At no point ever has slavery not been contested and vilified. Abortion opponents cropped up in the US two hundred year ago, to the year. Among the first civilization ever to practice chattel slavery. And abortion came over with the Vikings where it met itself in the Native culture.

My question is about unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth. Slavery was talked, and written, about its whole existence. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

 

He definitely left a legacy. 

 

[Sawbonz 27537]

15 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 

Appreciation of the intrinsic value of human life does not require a secular prism, imo. 

This 

Really what this boils down to is the the rights of two humans coming into direct conflict. Take the fetus to the 2 extremes of its existence. Only a very small percentage of people are against abortion at 10 weeks. Almost everyone is against abortion at 36 weeks other than for the health of the mother. It’s very hard to make a scientific argument the former is a human other than genotypically. It’s impossible to argue scientifically the latter is not human: it is a legal fiction based on that human’s current physical location

[bonnieblue 542]

Can the unwilling carrier of the fetus sue the state for surrogacy fees (standard fee + medical expenses)? Otherwise, gestating a fetus for almost 10 months is unpaid labor to effectuate the state’s interest in protecting said “life”.

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31438]

5 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

At no point ever has slavery not been contested and vilified. Abortion opponents cropped up in the US two hundred year ago, to the year. Among the first civilization ever to practice chattel slavery. And abortion came over with the Vikings where it met itself in the Native culture.

My question is about unenumerated rights guaranteed in the Ninth. Slavery was talked, and written, about its whole existence. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

 

He actually kind of gotcha there.

The 9th Amendment is not regarded as a source of rights, but rather a cautionary statement akin to "without limitation" or a truism.  But probably neither of you were familiar with that.

And, I'm not sure that simply because something was a common practice means it should or must be enshrined as a right. 

Regulation of abortion was as common as abortion itself, although outright bans were uncommon, I believe.

Apparently, one of the modes of regulation of abortion was that it was available until "quickening," or when the foetus began to kick, which apparently is about 18-20 weeks, and earlier for a second or subsequent pregnancy.  But I don't believe that that corresponds with "viability" as I don't think medicine had any reliable ability to insure survival of a premature delivery of any kind until the late 19th century.

In any event, I tend to be a fan of the right of privacy cases, but we have to admit that such a right is only kind of hinted at in the Constitution via the Fourth Amendment.  And thus, you have to admit that many/most/all of the right of privacy cases are "legislating from the bench."

In matters of human rights, I don't have much of a problem with "legislating from the bench."  Indeed, the 9th Amendment is probably correctly viewed as a statement that other rights, not enumerated specifically in the Bill of Rights, or elsewhere, do exist.  So even though it doesn't "create" them, it leaves room for later acknowledgement.

 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Human life is pretty straightforward to define from a biological sciences perspective. 

Life, as a general concept, is as well.

Person, personhood, etc. are philosophical terms and then we start getting into debates over existential vs. relational constructs as they relate to the human species. That's why lawyers in the 18th century were successful in codifying that certain humans were only 3/5's of a person. And some people today insist that certain humans are 0/5's of a person. 

You could scramble person, human life, life, personhood and human in these sentences and they'd make no more, or less, sense than before. 

[jimmyjazz 45887]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Really what this boils down to is the the rights of two humans coming into direct conflict. Take the fetus to the 2 extremes of its existence. Only a very small percentage of people are against abortion at 10 weeks. Almost everyone is against abortion at 36 weeks other than for the health of the mother. It’s very hard to make a scientific argument the former is a human other than genotypically. It’s impossible to argue scientifically the latter is not human: it is a legal fiction based on that human’s current physical location

I think this frames the discussion pretty well.  

I've heard the argument that the government can not compel anyone to save someone's life.  On the other hand, one can certainly be punished for taking or even endangering another's life.  Regarding the latter, to my knowledge risky behavior on the part of a pregnant woman (primarily abuse of drugs or alcohol) is never prosecuted, so in that sense, the fetus is not considered the equal of a post-birth human.  But, at some point we have to consider that baby a human, even prior to birth.  "Viability" seems as good a line in  the sand as any.  I believe that is widely considered to be between 22 and 24 weeks, not 15, and certainly not 6.

[Brisketexan 105062]

He actually kind of gotcha there.
The 9th Amendment is not regarded as a source of rights, but rather a cautionary statement akin to "without limitation" or a truism.  But probably neither of you were familiar with that.
And, I'm not sure that simply because something was a common practice means it should or must be enshrined as a right. 
Regulation of abortion was as common as abortion itself, although outright bans were uncommon, I believe.
Apparently, one of the modes of regulation of abortion was that it was available until "quickening," or when the foetus began to kick, which apparently is about 18-20 weeks, and earlier for a second or subsequent pregnancy.  But I don't believe that that corresponds with "viability" as I don't think medicine had any reliable ability to insure survival of a premature delivery of any kind until the late 19th century.
In any event, I tend to be a fan of the right of privacy cases, but we have to admit that such a right is only kind of hinted at in the Constitution via the Fourth Amendment.  And thus, you have to admit that many/most/all of the right of privacy cases are "legislating from the bench."
In matters of human rights, I don't have much of a problem with "legislating from the bench."  Indeed, the 9th Amendment is probably correctly viewed as a statement that other rights, not enumerated specifically in the Bill of Rights, or elsewhere, do exist.  So even though it doesn't "create" them, it leaves room for later acknowledgement.
 
 

In fact, the Clarence Thomas question of “and where is THAT right in the Constitution?” is a common approach that functionally voids the 9th amendment, and does exactly what several opponents of the BOR feared - that the BOR would be deemed a functional EXCLUSIVE “grant”’of rights, as opposed to what it actually is. It is actually a list of rights that we wanted to remind the government to really, really not tread on.

[Don Johnson 4752]

25 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think this frames the discussion pretty well.  

I've heard the argument that the government can not compel anyone to save someone's life.  On the other hand, one can certainly be punished for taking or even endangering another's life.  Regarding the latter, to my knowledge risky behavior on the part of a pregnant woman (primarily abuse of drugs or alcohol) is never prosecuted, so in that sense, the fetus is not considered the equal of a post-birth human.  But, at some point we have to consider that baby a human, even prior to birth.  "Viability" seems as good a line in  the sand as any.  I believe that is widely considered to be between 22 and 24 weeks, not 15, and certainly not 6.

True, but most states have fetal homicide laws.  So while endangering may not be equal, taking a life is.  In California, it's the unlawful killing of a fetus beyond 6 to 7 weeks of development.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Don Johnson

[TwiceHorn 31438]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In fact, the Clarence Thomas question of “and where is THAT right in the Constitution?” is a common approach that functionally voids the 9th amendment, and does exactly what several opponents of the BOR feared - that the BOR would be deemed a functional EXCLUSIVE “grant”’of rights, as opposed to what it actually is. It is actually a list of rights that we wanted to remind the government to really, really not tread on.

Sotomayor's retort that judicial review isn't in the Constitution is pretty effective.

[wildcat09 29345]

A pretty big body of SCOTUS caselaw recognizes that a right to privacy can be inferred from the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments. For the conservative justices to pretend that they just can't understand any of those cases or their reasoning and go "I'm looking for the word 'privacy' here and just can't find it!" should be beyond offensive to anyone who takes the legal system seriously. Hell, I don't even take our legal system seriously and I find it offensive. They have no real fundamental objection to a Constitutional right to privacy; they won't and can't actually argue with the reasoning in prior cases that supports that right. They just don't like it because it undergirds the right to an abortion and other rights they also hate, so privacy has to go.

[Neonmoon 38129]

Some people think a ball of human fetus cells with the potential to become a birthed human child require the same protections as an actual birthed human child. 

Some people think that it is a women's right to choose to advance that ball of human fetal cells to the next stage since it requires a woman's commitment to keep said human ball of cells alive through proper nutrition. 

One of these groups wants the government involved to force all potential balls to become birthed children. 

[jimmyjazz 45887]

56 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

True, but most states have fetal homicide laws.  So while endangering may not be equal, taking a life is.  In California, it's the unlawful killing of a fetus beyond 6 to 7 weeks of development.

Those statutes all carve out legal abortion, though, don't they?  At the very least, this would seemingly point to further disconnect between the law and fundamental rights.

[Don Johnson 4752]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Those statutes all carve out legal abortion, though, don't they?  At the very least, this would seemingly point to further disconnect between the law and fundamental rights.

I'm sure they do, and I agree.

[Willfully Horn 8001]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

He actually kind of gotcha there.

The 9th Amendment is not regarded as a source of rights, but rather a cautionary statement akin to "without limitation" or a truism.  But probably neither of you were familiar with that.

And, I'm not sure that simply because something was a common practice means it should or must be enshrined as a right. 

Regulation of abortion was as common as abortion itself, although outright bans were uncommon, I believe.

Apparently, one of the modes of regulation of abortion was that it was available until "quickening," or when the foetus began to kick, which apparently is about 18-20 weeks, and earlier for a second or subsequent pregnancy.  But I don't believe that that corresponds with "viability" as I don't think medicine had any reliable ability to insure survival of a premature delivery of any kind until the late 19th century.

In any event, I tend to be a fan of the right of privacy cases, but we have to admit that such a right is only kind of hinted at in the Constitution via the Fourth Amendment.  And thus, you have to admit that many/most/all of the right of privacy cases are "legislating from the bench."

In matters of human rights, I don't have much of a problem with "legislating from the bench."  Indeed, the 9th Amendment is probably correctly viewed as a statement that other rights, not enumerated specifically in the Bill of Rights, or elsewhere, do exist.  So even though it doesn't "create" them, it leaves room for later acknowledgement.

 

 

The ninth might have been interpreted as cautionary, but it reads as an open ended endorsement.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 

It flat out says that rights need not be spelled out for them to exist.

If choosing to end a pregnancy isn’t a right inferred from pursuit of happiness, then I question what that right means. (Is an unwanted pregnancy not the exact opposite of pursuing happiness)? Couple that with a solution that spans millennium but is little mentioned, (probably because most of humanity used to realize the matter was the personal business and unspoken right, solely, of the woman), then I see the definition of an unenumerated right and do not follow where my argument fails. Indeed, it seems you arrive at that conclusion, or, more likely, possibility, with your concluding sentence.

Though it has been mentioned ad nauseam, the bitter water abortifacient confirms such knowledge at the time Judaic Law was codified, yet the subject isn’t mentioned again. The exhaustive moral tome often mentioned as a taproot for our culture’s laws. Nary a peep. The accidental loss of pregnancy, which might have been cause to collect property damage? Covered.
 

(It ought always be repeated that under Judaic Law controlling (actually killing, unless deus ex machina had more juice then) women was the goal of the bitter water, but not even that culture went so far as to tell a woman she HAD to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term).

 

[Mole 4330]

14 hours ago, Lobo said:

But it begs the question,

97% of the abortion debate is question begging; 2% is using “begs the question” colloquially/incorrectly; 1% is pedantry in explaining the difference.

[mchookem 16321]

35 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

The ninth might have been interpreted as cautionary, but it reads as an open ended endorsement.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 

It flat out says that rights need not be spelled out for them to exist.

If choosing to end a pregnancy isn’t a right inferred from pursuit of happiness, then I question what that right means. (Is an unwanted pregnancy not the exact opposite of pursuing happiness)? Couple that with a solution that spans millennium but is little mentioned, (probably because most of humanity used to realize the matter was the personal business and unspoken right, solely, of the woman), then I see the definition of an unenumerated right and do not follow where my argument fails. Indeed, it seems you arrive at that conclusion, or, more likely, possibility, with your concluding sentence.

Though it has been mentioned ad nauseam, the bitter water abortifacient confirms such knowledge at the time Judaic Law was codified, yet the subject isn’t mentioned again. The exhaustive moral tome often mentioned as a taproot for our culture’s laws. Nary a peep. The accidental loss of pregnancy, which might have been cause to collect property damage? Covered.
 

(It ought always be repeated that under Judaic Law controlling (actually killing, unless deus ex machina had more juice then) women was the goal of the bitter water, but not even that culture went so far as to tell a woman she HAD to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term).

 

really excellent post...i have never actually seen the right to 'pursuit of happiness' argued like that with re: to being pro-choice, that is a good, logical argument.

so can any surly anti-choice adherents please explain how/why the Bible gives rabbinic instructions on how to abort? (if your wife is a whore, of course)

i only learned that was IN THE BIBLE this year and i found it incredible...yet every time it's pointed out...*crickets*

i would really like to hear from someone on how that is incorporated into the christian/biblical based anti-choice argument. 

i suppose if you are anti-choice and an atheist it's irrelevant...but that's probably like .5% of anti-choice denizens. 

anyone?

[Nivek 16920]

12 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The3/5 compromise had nothing to do with what constituted a human life.  It involved a legal definition of what defined a "person". The former is clearly the realm of science.  The latter, lawyers (and relatedly philosophers). Don't confuse the shifting sands around "personhood" with the innate nature of a human life. The legal arguments usually end up with a focus on who to exclude from the definition. And we end up with box cars full of people on their way to gas chambers.  

The definition of a person by the same government (IRS) includes "A citizen or resident of the United States. A domestic partnership.  A domestic corporation (Thanks assholes of the supreme court). Any estate other than a foreign estate."   

A fetus is not a resident/citizen because it has not been born.   Birth having being established as a criteria for citizenship/residency.    

Godwin's law!

2 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

True, but most states have fetal homicide laws.  So while endangering may not be equal, taking a life is.  In California, it's the unlawful killing of a fetus beyond 6 to 7 weeks of development.

You can't cause a miscarriage on a woman by kicking the shit out of her and walk away free.  You cannot shoot a pregnant woman who intended to deliver her baby and pretend you just didn't end two lives.   The intention to carry to full term should be part of the application of the law.   Don't beat/kill women or fire your gun like a moron and you will amazingly not have this become a problem for you.   

[jimmyjazz 45887]

18 minutes ago, mchookem said:

really excellent post...i have never actually seen the right to 'pursuit of happiness' argued like that with re: to being pro-choice, that is a good, logical argument.

Maybe . . . the irony here is that "Pursuit of Happiness" is preceded by "Life, Liberty, and" in the Declaration of Independence.

(Note:  I am firmly on the pro-choice side of this debate, but I enjoy reading the debate.)

[wildcat09 29345]

The deftness with which Anastasis flits back and forth between the reasonable-sounding "look I don't think pro-choice people are monsters and I agree that some restrictions on abortion that have been enacted are bad, but can't we all agree that we should try to reduce repeat abortions?" and "anyone who supports legal abortion is pro-holocaust" is really impressive. You almost forget he's doing it.

[jimmyjazz 45887]

20 minutes ago, mchookem said:

so can any surly anti-choice adherents please explain how/why the Bible gives rabbinic instructions on how to abort? (if your wife is a whore, of course)

i only learned that was IN THE BIBLE this year and i found it incredible...yet every time it's pointed out...*crickets*

i would really like to hear from someone on how that is incorporated into the christian/biblical based anti-choice argument. 

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the rabid pro-life movement, at least in the US, pretty much started gaining steam in the second half of the 20th century, and it was conceived as a more palatable rallying point than the true impetus behind the movement:  maintaining segregation, particularly in schools.  It was easier to get the masses going in one direction by being "pro-baby" than by being "pro-entrenched-racism".

I mean, the Southern Baptist Convention outlined and subsequently reaffirmed its hardly-conservative stance on abortion in the years before AND after Roe V Wade.

[Willfully Horn 8001]

44 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Maybe . . . the irony here is that "Pursuit of Happiness" is preceded by "Life, Liberty, and" in the Declaration of Independence.

(Note:  I am firmly on the pro-choice side of this debate, but I enjoy reading the debate.)

Outlawing abortion relies on invoking fetal rights. While arguing about fetal “life” is more moot than persuasive (and I am a breath of life believer,) what Liberty does a fetus possess? 
 

Edited to explain that the Creator has not yet conferred Liberty to a fetus. I believe there is a tautology here. 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Explained

[F250 28764]

59 minutes ago, mchookem said:

so can any surly anti-choice adherents please explain how/why the Bible gives rabbinic instructions on how to abort? (if your wife is a whore, of course)

Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity go together like oil and water. The frequent use of Pharisses as a pejorative in the New Testament kind of drives home the point. 

Generally speaking anything in the Old Testament is dismissed or cherry picked as one sees fit.