#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
At what point in foetal development should abortion be illegal?
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth
| Add New Argument |
|
1
point
It would be very difficult to come up with any time where it should be illegal. The below would cover most scenarios: ----------- In addition to the reasons that abortion itself can be justified: Self-defense - All pregnancies pose a risk to the mother. Mercy - a fetus that is in pain and will not live. Selective reductions - from triplets to twins, or twins to a single, etc. - to improve the overall chances for those remaining. ------------------------- There are additional arguments against making abortion illegal: ------------------------- Ineffectiveness: "Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates." (ref) Laws making it harder to get abortions are making them happen later in the gestation, and are more dangerous/costly, etc. Complexity: The actual complexity of writing a law that applies for the range of possible circumstances: Should selective reductions to improve the health of multiples be legal? Should it be legal to protect the life of the mother? (how certain does the doctor have to be that death is likely?) Should it be legal to protect the health of the mother? (how do you define "health" - severe organ damage? mental health?) If a 10 year old is raped by an uncle and becomes pregnant - which is better: having the child or an abortion? Who gets to make the decision? Should embryonic stem-cells be used for research or in curing diseases? What about extra fertilized eggs created for in-vitro fertilization? Would several forms of birth control pills, IUDs, etc. become illegal? What penalties should be imposed on the woman, the doctor, other people who knew? Enforcement: Is it reckless endangerment for child-capable women to consume coffee/soda/tea, sushi/oysters/clams/mussels/crab, several types of fish, homemade ice cream, mayonnaise, lox, steak tartar, pâté, unpasteurized milk, soft cheese, deli meat, etc. etc.? If she has consumed any of these and has a miscarriage, is she guilty of negligent homicide? Should all miscarriages be investigated as potential abortions/murders? The cost of investigating all the new potential crimes and jailing of all the new criminals, etc. Scarcity: Are there lots of 9 month pregnant women getting abortions to fit into a dress for a party? Alternatives: Focusing on education about the responsibilities of sex, using protection, etc. reduces abortions. An IUD program in Colorado was very successful at reducing both teen pregnancy and abortion rates (ref) ----------- If we contrive a case where there is some woman who deliberately kills her child days before birth without the help of a doctor for no good reason, then it is most likely a mental health issue - in which case, we would generally not be able to convict her for a crime anyway. 1
point
Self-defense - All pregnancies pose a risk to the mother. I don’t believe this is valid. Life poses risks. You can’t shoot at other drivers on the road and claim self-defense merely because they pose a (very real) risk to your life. There needs to be more than the typical pregnancy to justify abortion on the grounds of self-defense. 1
point
According to UMN there are four elements to self-defense: “(1) an unprovoked attack, (2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and (3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to (4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.” 1. A baby is not on the attack, not is it’s presence unprovoked. 2.The injury threatened by having a baby is on par with the other natural injuries that accompany life, unlike the injury that accompanies an unprovoked attack.. If abortions were restricted to the risk of death, then the scope would be more narrow than you prefer. 3. When death is not reasonably believed to be the danger, killing is not a reasonable degree of force to use in self-defense. 4. Covered above. Abortion fails to qualify as self-defense on every element. 1
point
According to UMN An online study guide for the University of Minnesota is not the arbiter of what qualifies for self-defense. From the current self-defense statute for Minnesota: "reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist: (3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person;" A baby is not on the attack Yes, it is. The baby poses harm to the mother - whether intentional, or not. Malicious intent of the harmer is not a required element of self-defense. not is it’s presence unprovoked Yes, it is unprovoked. The mother is not influencing the baby to harm or not harm the mother, it will happen regardless. Presuming you mean the initial sex - consent to sex is not consent to childbirth. Many women are using birth-control when they get pregnant (and there is rape to consider.) Take also the case where you leave your house door unlocked - do you loose the right to self-defense from someone who enters your home? on par with the other natural injuries that accompany life Death naturally accompanies life... When death is not reasonably believed to be the danger, killing is not a reasonable degree of force Self-defense does not require the use of the same amount of force (e.g. stabbing for stabbing threat, etc.), only reasonable force. The minimum amount of force to prevent the harm is always a reasonable amount. In the case of pregnancy, abortion is the minimum amount of force required to prevent the harms of pregnancy, thus, ipso facto, is reasonable. An online study guide for the University of Minnesota is not the arbiter of what qualifies for self-defense. Perhaps not. But this portion of the study guide is taken directly from their course text book “Introduction to Criminal Law”. It’s a legitimate source, though I can understand why you may want to pretend it isn’t. From the current self-defense statute for Minnesota: "reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist: (3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person;" First, applying this law applies personhood to the fetus. Sure you want to do that? Maybe you don’t realize it, but being a fetus is not an offense. Nothing a fetus does constitutes an offense. And no, a baby is not attacking you, that’s absurd. Furthermore, there is no offense for which the use of force could be justified that does not require criminal intent as one of the elements. (and there is rape to consider.) Take also the case where you leave your house door unlocked - do you loose the right to self-defense from someone who enters your home? No there isn’t the case of rape to consider, because you want to use self-defense as justification for any given pregnancy. Do you loose the right to use lethal force after you literally force someone into your home that never intended to be there and is not reasonably expected to kill you? Yes you do. Self-defense does not require the use of the same amount of force (e.g. stabbing for stabbing threat, etc.), only reasonable force. The minimum amount of force to prevent the harm is always a reasonable amount. In the case of pregnancy, abortion is the minimum amount of force required to prevent the harms of pregnancy It is very weak to claim lethal force is a reasonable measure to prevent non-lethal harm from a non-aggressor. It is not reasonable in the slightest. 1
point
Nothing a fetus does constitutes an offense and It’s a legitimate source If a dog is attacking you, is the dog committing a crime? Do you still have the right to self-defense? Can you take antibiotics to kill bacteria? etc. personhood to the fetus You have a self-defense right against fully grown persons - so, under the argument that abortion is self-defense, it is irrelevant whether the fetus is considered a person or not. a baby is not attacking you It certainly does pose harm. there is no offense for which the use of force could be justified that does not require criminal intent as one of the elements The intent of the attacker is not a required element of self-defense. People aren't mind-readers, and aren't required to be in order to act in self-defense. The language varies by jurisdiction, but the general criteria is reasonable belief of jeopardy. Do you loose the right to use lethal force If you allow an evangelizing Jehovah's Witness (or even a friend) into your home, do you automatically agree to accept any harm they pose to you? If they pull a knife or try to rape you, etc., have you lost the right to self-defense because you initially allowed them in? very weak to claim lethal force is a reasonable measure to prevent non-lethal harm from a non-aggressor More than 40 states have some version of Castle Doctrine which allows a person to shoot someone who is (non-lethally) robbing their property. ref If a dog is attacking you, is the dog committing a crime? If the dog had functional human DNA the answer would be yes. You have a self-defense right against fully grown persons - so, under the argument that abortion is self-defense, it is irrelevant whether the fetus is considered a person or not. Except that a fetus doesn’t commit an offense for which lethal force would be justified. If a fetus is a person, then the legal doctrines that apply to people will appropriately apply to a fetus, in which case lethal self-defense is not justified. If a fetus is not a person, then legal doctrines that apply to people are not appropriate, and self-defense in not an applicable concept. It certainly does pose harm. Yes, a baby poses harm, but it is not committing an offense. It is not attacking. Unless otherwise informed, a person has no reasonable expectation that a baby poses harm that would justify lethal force. Did you read your own source? Lethal force isn’t justified in all cases of resisting an offense, reasonable force is. Lethal force against a non-lethal threat is not reasonable. Not to anyone but you. If you tried to apply this in real life, you would go to prison. The intent of the attacker is not a required element of self-defense. People aren't mind-readers, and aren't required to be in order to act in self-defense Intent is a required element in the offenses for which one can justifiably use force against another. People don’t have to be mind readers. There is a reasonable person standard. This means a persons belief that there is a threat of offense must be reasonable. That persons use of force in response it must be a reasonable use of force, which is not often lethal. To take your position seriously means rationalizing punching a diaper baby who is assaulting you with their piss. It’s ridiculous. If you allow an evangelizing Jehovah's Witness (or even a friend) into your home, do you automatically agree to accept any harm they pose to you? If they pull a knife or try to rape you, etc., have you lost the right to self-defense because you initially allowed them in? If they pull a knife or try to rape you, then they are committing an offense for which a use of force in response would be justified. Fetus’s aren’t committing any offense. To the extent that one must defend against the hazards of pregnancy, lethal force is not reasonable. Furthermore, if a guest in your house is being a jerk, you can kick them out, even in the dead of winter. When your child is being a jerk, it is often illegal to kick them out, especially in the dead of winter. More than 40 states have some version of Castle Doctrine which allows a person to shoot someone who is (non-lethally) robbing their property Robbery is often a lethal offense. That means it is reasonable to assume lethal intent by an intruder, and to use lethal force in response. That’s the reason for the castle doctrine. Not do kill non-lethal aggressors, but to legally establish a standard that lethal intent is reasonably assumed. There is no doctrine, no statute, and no criminal justice college curriculum that supports your position that self-defense is justification for abortion in general. Even your sources demonstrate the opposite. 1
point
If the dog had functional human DNA the answer would be yes. Then, since the answer is no, do you still have the right to self-defense? a fetus doesn’t commit an offense and not committing an offense and Fetus’s aren’t committing any offense, etc. A criminal offense is not a required element of self-defense. You can kill bacteria, viruses, rabid dogs, etc. in self-defense - none of them are committing crimes. If a crazy deluded person is attacking you, even if they were so mentally ill as to not be able to be prosecuted for a crime, you still have the right to self-defense. Unless otherwise informed, a person has no reasonable expectation that a baby poses harm that would justify lethal force. Begging the question. This would depend on the amount of harm that justifies self-defense and what alternatives are available to prevent the harm. (unless you would like to establish that other criteria are necessary.) Intent is a required element in the offenses for which one can justifiably use force against another. No, it isn't. If someone pulls a gun on you and you shoot them only to find out later that the gun was fake or that they were pranking you, their intent is irrelevant as to whether you acted in self-defense. a persons belief that there is a threat of offense must be reasonable. A person's belief that there is a threat of harm must be reasonable - and, in this case, it is. To take your position seriously means rationalizing punching a diaper baby who is assaulting you with their piss. It’s ridiculous. It is a ridiculous misstatement of my position. As I have already said, self-defense must consider the alternatives available. In this case, many other alternatives are available. To the extent that one must defend against the hazards of pregnancy, lethal force is not reasonable. The minimum force is reasonable, and, in the case of pregnancy, termination is the minimum force. Robbery is often a lethal offense. Pregnancy is sometimes lethal, therefore ... Not do kill non-lethal aggressors Even if its purpose is not the allowance of killing non-lethal aggressors (though people can read the statutes for themselves to see that this often is the intent), its effect is just that. There is no doctrine, no statute, and no criminal justice college curriculum There are lots of doctrines, statutes, and curricula regarding self-defense. That they aren't often used in an abortion context is not a reason why they can't/shouldn't be. Then, since the answer is no, do you still have the right to self-defense? You have the right to defend yourself against non-humans, but they cannot commit crimes. The right to defend yourself against a human is conditional on circumstances defined by law. A criminal offense is not a required element of self-defense. I will refer you back to the law you already referenced. “(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person”. Offense is a legal term. It means criminal offense. If a crazy deluded person is attacking you, even if they were so mentally ill as to not be able to be prosecuted for a crime, you still have the right to self-defense. Insanity is a defense against prosecution for criminal acts, it is not a defense against the fact that a crime was committed. You can kill bacteria, viruses, rabid dogs, etc. in self-defense - none of them are committing crimes. None of them are committing crimes because none of them are human. When defending yourself against a person, law defines the circumstances of justification. The law you referenced requires a crime (offense). Nobody refers to fighting off a flu as self-defense. Dogs cannot commit crimes. For use of force in self-defense to be valid against a person, an offense must be occurring (unless otherwise stated in a different section of the law). Begging the question. This would depend on the amount of harm that justifies self-defense and what alternatives are available to prevent the harm. (unless you would like to establish that other criteria are necessary.) No it really isn’t. There is no precedent for the use of lethal force against a harm that is not reasonably expected to be lethal (because that is not reasonable). Since childbirth is not reasonably expected to be a lethal harm, unless otherwise informed, a person cannot reasonably use lethal force in defense from said harm. I said that intent is a required element in the offenses for which one can justifiably use force against another, to which you responded: No, it isn't. If someone pulls a gun on you and you shoot them only to find out later that the gun was fake or that they were pranking you, their intent is irrelevant as to whether you acted in self-defense. In this case, it is reasonable for you to expect that the aggressor means to carry out an offense from which you must defend yourself. The fact that the person never intended to actually carry out the offense is irrelevant to the “intent” element of the crime. What matters is that you reasonably expected intent. It’s called mens rea. A person's belief that there is a threat of harm must be reasonable - and, in this case, it is. Again, I will refer you back to your own source. “reasonable force may be used… in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense”. Not harm, offense. And that force used must be reasonable. Lethal force against an expected non-lethal threat has never been, and never will be, considered reasonable. The minimum force is reasonable, and, in the case of pregnancy, termination is the minimum force. Lethal force against a non-lethal threat is not reasonable. By going to a hospital to deliver your baby, doctors will assist in taking a whole host of non-lethal measures to avoid and reduce the harm caused by having a baby. Pregnancy is sometimes lethal, therefore ... No one will be there to inform you if a robber is going to be a lethal threat. Doctors will tell you if your baby, who is not committing a crime, is a lethal threat. Even if its purpose is not the allowance of killing non-lethal aggressors (though people can read the statutes for themselves to see that this often is the intent), its effect is just that. The purpose is to give legal weight to a person who is willing to err on the side of caution rather than giving the possibly lethal benefit of the doubt to a criminal aggressor, as people can see for themselves in relevant statutes. The effect is that people are sometimes killed when they act in a way that a reasonable person would consider a lethal threat, which is appropriate. There are lots of doctrines, statutes, and curricula regarding self-defense. That they aren't often used in an abortion context is not a reason why they can't/shouldn't be. The reason there is no doctrine, statute, or curricula that applies self-defense to abortions is because it is not a reasonable application, as I have, by now, thoroughly demonstrated to the reasonable reader. 1
point
I will refer you back to the law you already referenced. And I will refer you to your own statements. "You have the right to defend yourself against non-humans, but they cannot commit crimes." Does the Minnesota law allow for this? If it doesn't, do you think you do not have the right to self-defense in this case, or do you think it is possible that the Minnesota law is not perfectly written for all possible self-defense scenarios? If you insist on the need for a criminal offense - use assault since carrying the pregnancy to term will cause the woman physical pain; use rape/sexual assault since the baby would penetrate the mother's vagina, use theft of food/nutrients, etc., etc. There is no precedent for the use of lethal force against a harm that is not reasonably expected to be lethal (because that is not reasonable). There are many - as we have already reviewed. Can you shoot someone you think is going to rape you? This is a lethal response to a non-lethal harm. Shooting someone stealing your TV - legal in most states - lethal response to non-lethal harm. The fact that the person never intended to actually carry out the offense is irrelevant Um - exactly!! What matters is that you reasonably expected intent. Slight correction - what matters is that you reasonably expected harm - even if you know this is likely a crazy person that doesn't know what they are doing, you can defend yourself. This guy just killed a person and ate their face on the bus you are on, is coming at you, and you have no where to go - can you shoot them? No one will be there to inform you You will be there to inform you. criminal aggressor A person could be in your house without criminal intent - mental deficiency, drunkenness, someone gave them the wrong address (accidentally or on purpose), etc. The effect is that people are sometimes killed when they act in a way that a reasonable person would consider a lethal threat, which is appropriate. Some that would have been deadly are killed and some that would not have been deadly are killed (lethal response to non-lethal harm). The same would be the case for abortion. The reason there is no doctrine There are studies of the subject if you just google "self-defense abortion". One of the most widely used is Judith Jarvis Thomson's: A Defense of Abortion Ronald Reagan ref and Chris Christy ref have recognized the link between the two (though not to the full extent that I point out exists here.) The rules of self-defense are more well-founded, generally accepted, and better describe the circumstances of abortion than the Supreme Court's trimester delineated right to privacy standard. Just saying "it is not a reasonable application" is not sufficient argument. do you think it is possible that the Minnesota law is not perfectly written for all possible self-defense scenarios? It is more likely and reasonable that abortion is not a self-defense scenario, as I have said from the beginning. Furthermore, being a fetus and being born is not an example of any kind of criminal offense, another fact that represents your own misunderstanding rather than a failing of criminal law. At best you can appeal to religious notions of original sin to pin a crime on the unborn. Can you shoot someone you think is going to rape you? This is a lethal response to a non-lethal harm. Forcible Felonies can not be reasonably assumed to stop at non-lethal crime. You have not presented a single non-lethal crime wherein a potential victim could reasonably use lethal force without believing the aggressor may be evil. As such, there is no precedent for lethal force being used against a harm that is expected to be non-lethal, as I said. Shooting someone stealing your TV - legal in most states - lethal response to non-lethal harm. No it isn’t. Shooting someone who is in your house may be (the pose a potential lethal threat), but if you shoot a man running away down the street with your TV, you will go to jail everywhere. You just don’t know what you’re talking about. Um - exactly!! This was in response to my statement that the fact that a person never actually intended to commit the crime is irrelevant, which indicates you haven’t understood what I’ve said. The aggressor doesn’t have to actually intend to carry out the offense, the defender has to reasonably believe the aggressor intends to offend. Intent is a necessary part of the crime for which a person must be reasonably believed to be engaged in. Slight correction - what matters is that you reasonably expected harm More precisely, what matters is that you reasonably expect an offense, which is what your references law says, and which does not apply to the unborn. It doesn’t matter what you reasonably expect the aggressors defense to be for the crime you are defending against, fetuses aren’t committing one. This guy just killed a person and ate their face on the bus you are on, is coming at you, and you have no where to go - can you shoot them? He about to commit a crime for which you can expect lethal harm. His insanity defense does not alter the illegality of his actions.A fetus is not committing a crime, and cannot usually be expected to present lethal harm. A person could be in your house without criminal intent - mental deficiency, drunkenness, someone gave them the wrong address (accidentally or on purpose), etc. Yes it’s possible for a reasonable person to apply lethal force to a situation that only appears present a lethal threat. Mistaken application of lethal force is not relevant to purposeful application of lethal force against another who is known to be committing no crime and not expected to present a lethal threat. Some that would have been deadly are killed and some that would not have been deadly are killed (lethal response to non-lethal harm). The same would be the case for abortion. Doctors can determine a reasonable expectation of lethality of pregnancy, a homeowner cannot generally determine a reasonable expectation of lethality if a burglar. Just saying "it is not a reasonable application" is not sufficient argument. It’s not sufficient. That’s why I cited the relevant parts from a criminal justice text book and referenced your own source on the relevant parts of Law to illustrate that your application is not reasonable. You have vaguely referred to a philosopher and some Presidents. Additionally you have shown a thorough misunderstanding of the law and legal doctrines in question. You repeatedly use examples that illustrate your misunderstanding of law and legal doctrine after I have already corrected the underlying error. Unless you say something new, this thread has run its course. 1
point
It is more likely Then explain how you would have the right to self-defense against the dog under the Minnesota law since it commits no criminal offense. being a fetus and being born is not an example of any kind of criminal offense I gave several examples of offenses - you have gave no reason why they do not apply. religious notions This has been a purposefully irreligious discussion. Forcible Felonies can not be reasonably assumed to stop at non-lethal crime. If you knew for a certainty that someone was going to rape but not kill you - you would say that you could not defend yourself? an offense, which is what your references law says, and which does not apply to the unborn Why not? Shooting someone who is in your house may be (the pose a potential lethal threat) Some crimes end in death, so do some pregnancies. if you shoot a man running away down the street with your TV, you will go to jail everywhere. Incorrect. This would depend on the state. For example, Texas allows you not only to shoot the fleeing thief, but you can do so even if the TV is someone else's. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/ The aggressor doesn’t have to actually intend to carry out the offense True. the defender has to reasonably believe the aggressor intends to offend. False. He about to commit a crime for which you can expect lethal harm. Right, you have a reasonable belief in harm, not intent to harm. His insanity defense does not alter the illegality of his actions. It does reflect his intent. Even if you are convinced that this person lacks intent and is trying to kill aliens - you can act. Doctors can determine a reasonable expectation of lethality of pregnancy, a homeowner cannot generally determine a reasonable expectation of lethality if a burglar. Doctors only make approximations and that is what we expect of homeowners as well. That’s why I cited the relevant parts from a criminal justice text book Which I answered. and referenced your own source Since you referenced a Minnesota guide, I linked to the Minnesota Statutes. I did not claim that the Minnesota law should be dispositive - in fact, I think our colloquy has shown it to be quite deficient. You have vaguely referred to a philosopher and some Presidents You said that others don't use the terms this way, and, though that isn't really an argument, I posted examples where they have. This would depend on the state. For example, Texas allows you not only to shoot the fleeing thief, but you can do so even if the TV is someone else's. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/ This is the only thing new that you posted. I stand corrected. Texas Law has provided for explicit examples where it is considered legally reasonable to use lethal force against a non-lethal offender in specific circumstances. This only seemingly removes one of the many issues with you position (and is unique to Texas according to Mark Hoekstra of Texas A&M;) Nonetheless, relying on Texas law still doesn’t achieve validity for the position that general abortion qualifies as self defense. The crimes which you would like to attribute to fetuses do not fit the codes for said crimes. Most often, mens rea is required. Alternatively, the qualifier of “unlawful” is used to describe a particular act. A fetus does not unlawfully acquire nutrients, it is not theft. A fetus does not knowingly and intentionally penetrate a sex organ, it is not sexual assault. A fetus does not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to a mother (an insane person acts recklessly, a fetus can act no other way but to be born). Nothing a fetus does qualifies for the use of lethal force even in Texas. Whether a crime will result in criminal lethal force can not be reasonably assumed. Whether a pregnancy will result in death can be reasonably assumed due to a doctors professional opinion. Criminal laws are not applicable to animal behavior, as such animals cannot be criminals. Laws apply to human behavior. So if the fetus is a person, and you want to make a legal claim of self-defense against a person, then the legal doctrines that apply to the given human interaction appropriately applies here. This means that babies have to be considered to be committing an offense for self-defense to apply, they commit no offense. Reasonable force must be applied to prevent or cease said offense, even in Texas lethal force does not apply to fetus behavior. The fact that you find current law insufficient for your purposes, causing you to rely on a philosopher (without even a quote), puts your position clearly outside of the legal framework in which you wish to present it. If you find the laws deficient, then making up your own bullshit is fine, but it doesn’t amount to an appropriate legal application of self-defense against pregnancy in general. This summary is a repeat of the answers to your various errors. This only occurred because the Texas law allowing specific circumstances of lethal force against non-lethal offenders is a new element. 1
point
unique to Texas Other state statutes would also allow using deadly force against fleeing felons - e.g. Florida: "A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony." ref The commission includes the fleeing. While it was later limited in the US, the Fleeing Felon rule was Common Law and is still used elsewhere. ref The crimes which you would like to attribute to fetuses do not fit the codes for said crimes. Most often, mens rea is required. Paraphrasing your earlier comment: Lack of mens rea would be "a defense against prosecution for criminal acts, it is not a defense against the fact that a crime was committed." Whether a crime will result in criminal lethal force can not be reasonably assumed. Yes, it can - and is often the legally required standard, especially outside the home. Laws apply to human behavior. We have many laws on how humans can interact with animals - bestiality, animal cruelty, etc. The question still stands - if the Minnesota law requires an offense, and dogs cannot commit offenses - do people in Minnesota have the right to self-defense against the attacking dog, or not? rely on a philosopher My argument doesn't depend on any philosopher - you insisted on examples of others using the abortion as self-defense framework - initially, I tried to bring it back to my argument, subsequently I offered examples. outside of the legal framework in which you wish to present it My argument is that abortion should be considered under the framework of self-defense - not that it currently is. ---- The remaining questions: Harm/Offense: If you have the right to self-defense against an attacking dog, where does that right come from? Irrelevance of aggressor intent: Even if you are convinced that this person lacks intent and is trying to kill aliens - can you act? What level of harm is necessary to act: If you knew for a certainty that someone was going to rape but not kill you - you would say that you could not defend yourself? Other state statutes would also allow using deadly force against fleeing felons Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner. Common Law is often not reflected in criminal statute. Paraphrasing your earlier comment:... A defendant claiming that there is a lack of a required element of a crime (mens rea), is quite different from a person having the inability to possess said element of a crime. This inability removes the possibility that the crime could be committed by said person (fetus). if the Minnesota law requires an offense, and dogs cannot commit offenses - do people in Minnesota have the right to self-defense against the attacking dog, or not? You will never be called to account for killing an attacking dog, as it is not a criminal matter (dogs can’t commit crimes). As such, there is no legal claim of self-defense to be made in a criminal court. You can say you were defending yourself, but this is not a legal use of the word. Your position has no merit within a legal framework. Try to argue it outside of a legal framework and we will see if it has merit. you insisted on examples of others using the abortion as self-defense framework I believe I insisted that there is no doctrine, statute, or (criminal justice in context) curricula. There isn’t. My argument is that abortion should be considered under the framework of self-defense - not that it currently is Much like other principles used to justify general abortion, if implemented consistently, your position would have disastrous consequences, especially for children everywhere. Tired of your bratty kid living in your house? Well it’s your right to expel a trespasser. Don’t want to put up with constant assault and abuse from your infant? We’ll defend yourself damnit! As a matter of fact, you never invited that child into your house, at least not today. What right do they have to your food? None. Fetuses commit no crimes. They are not fleeing felons. The harm they necessarily bring with them is predictable. Your position is shit. 1
point
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited I believe that is what I said. However, it is used elsewhere, which rebuts your claim that "you will go to jail everywhere". A defendant claiming that there is a lack of a required element of a crime (mens rea), is quite different from a person having the inability to possess said element of a crime. This only succeeds in putting the baby back in the same category as the dog. You can say you were defending yourself, but this is not a legal use of the word. I think this might be you agreeing with me, at least in part. Many statutes don't reflect all cases where one should legally be allowed to defend oneself - abortion is one of those cases. Your position has no merit within a legal framework. Self-defense against animals is well established. "It has been expressly held that a state legislature cannot, under the guise of enacting a game law, deprive a person of his constitutionally guaranteed rights to keep and bear arms in defense of his person and property. (See People v. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, 24 A.L.R. 1115.) But either with or without reference to the constitutional guaranties to which we have referred above, the courts of many of our sister states and England have recognized and enforced the principle that the owner of property may kill animals when necessary to prevent damage being done to such property. (See People v. Nakamura, 99 Colo. 262, 62 P.2d 246; State v. Mohler, 44 Ohio App. 52, 184 N.E. 298; State v. Churchill, 15 Idaho, 645, 98 P. 853, 16 Ann. Cas. 947, 19 L.R.A. (n.s.) 835; Drolet v. Armstrong, 141 Wn. 654, 252 P. 96, 97; Kesler v. Jones, 50 Idaho, 405, 296 P. 773; Helsel v. Fletcher, 98 Okla. 285, 225 P. 514, 33 A.L.R. 792; Boulston's Case, 77 Eng. Rep. (Reprint) 216; Regina v. Symington, 4 Brit. Col. Rep. 323; Wadhurst v. Damme, 79 Eng. Rep. (Reprint) 37; Protheroe v. Mathews, 172 Eng. Rep. (Reprint) 1108; Smith v. Williams, 9 Times Law Rep. 9; Taylor v. Newman, 122 Eng. Rep. (Reprint) 393.)" ref See also, See also, See also... there is no doctrine, statute, or (criminal justice in context) curricula. Many schools (curricula) and churches (doctrine) have examined the idea. And again, the extent that they have is not an argument against the extent that they should. disastrous consequences, especially for children everywhere. As we have already discussed, self-defense considers the alternatives available. These options are different for born children and unborn children. Fetuses commit no crimes. Neither do dogs. The harm they necessarily bring with them is predictable. If you can predict that the guy on the bus who is killing people and eating faces poses you harm, have you lost the right of self-defense due to predictability? which rebuts your claim that "you will go to jail everywhere" Tennessee VS Garner limited force to non-lethal force, in cases not fitting the criteria I already provided. Your Texas law rebuts my claim, as I already said, fleeing felon does not. Not anymore. But it doesn’t matter because of the mountain of other issues with your position. This only succeeds in putting the baby back in the same category as the dog The baby was never in that category since the baby is a person. The similarity, and problematic feature for you, is that babies are people who cannot commit crimes, an element necessary for self-defense in every case we’ve discussed. I think this might be you agreeing with me, at least in part Not in the slightest. Laws are for human conduct and protection. If you kill a persons dog, you have offended the owner. Self-defense is not an applicable legal claim. If you kill a person, you have offended the person and may need to claim self-defense. At this point I need to confirm that you understand that there is a difference between killing an animal and killing a person. Do you? Many schools (curricula) and churches (doctrine) have examined the idea. And again, the extent that they have is not an argument against the extent that they should Considering the context is statute and legal precedent, churches and schools of philosophy are irrelevant. I’ve explained not only that these subjects don’t exist, but also why they shouldn’t. Though you said you meant to keep this topic non-religious, you have consistently attempted to argue for the existence of a secular original sin. We all come into this world as assaultive little criminals, or maybe rapists, and our mothers need to defend against such unavoidable moral hazards lest they fall victim to our violent ways. In arguing that general abortion is acceptable on the grounds of self-defense, you have additionally argued for legitimacy of laws that allow lethal force against non-lethal aggressors engaged in non-criminal conduct. Your position is that self-defense doctrine should be expanded to justify killing non-lethal, non-aggressive people who have committed no crime and you can’t seem to see the unintended consequences that would follow if you had your way. 1
point
Tennessee VS Garner This was decided in the US - the mention of the fleeing felon rule was relevant to your "everywhere" claim presuming that everywhere included outside the US. babies are people who cannot commit crimes The summary of your position: non-human threat, no criminal intent: defend your self (dog, etc.) human threat, lack of criminal intent: defend your self (crazy person, etc.) human threat, inability of criminal intent: don't defend your self (fetus) This is based on what? Where are the legal cases where lack of intent is treated as significantly different than inability of intent? I’ve explained not only that these subjects don’t exist, but also why they shouldn’t. https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/ you have consistently attempted to argue for the existence of a secular original sin. I have argued for original sin exactly 0 times. The only one who has used that phrase at all in this entire debate was you. our mothers need to defend against such unavoidable moral hazards not moral hazards, actual hazards. legitimacy of laws that allow lethal force against non-lethal aggressors. Already enshrined in statute in the vast majority of states. you can’t seem to see the unintended consequences that would follow and you can't seem to name them. Where are the legal cases where lack of intent is treated as significantly different than inability of intent? Where are the criminal cases involving necessarily innocent offenders? Gosh, what a good question... Already enshrined in statute in the vast majority of states. Wrong. You cited Texas, a State unique for having laws permitting lethal force against known non-lethal offenders. and you can't seem to name them. I’ve named them several times you fucking mite. I’m done here. 1
point
Where are the criminal cases involving necessarily innocent offenders? Where does this "necessarily innocent" class of people get codified? When a police officer is effecting arrest is innocent of things that would otherwise be crimes, these exceptions are spelled out in law. You cited Texas Every US self-defense statute I've ever seen allows acting for less than lethal harm - e.g. serious bodily injury. Some version of Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and Make My Day law applies in the vast majority of states (my prior reference gave statutes for 40 states). I’ve named them several times A:"You can’t shoot at other drivers" J:"available alternatives" A:"punching a diaper baby" J:"self-defense must consider the alternatives available" A:"disastrous consequences, especially for children everywhere" J:"As we have already discussed, self-defense considers the alternatives available" You've said the same thing several times - your argument has failed several times. 1
point
I think that may be like my last scenario: "If we contrive a case where there is some woman who deliberately kills her child days before birth without the help of a doctor for no good reason, then it is most likely a mental health issue - in which case, we would generally not be able to convict her for a crime anyway." The trick would be the "because they feel like it" part. Did they feel like it because they got scared, the father left, etc. etc., or ?? I don't know of any doctor that is going to do the procedure at that stage without some reason, so, does she attempt it herself? She obviously believes the harms of doing the abortion are less than going through with the pregnancy, so, is this rational - if so, should be legal; if irrational, is this so irrational as to constitute severe mental deficiency? - if so, couldn't convict anyway. "If we contrive a case where there is some woman who deliberately kills her child days before birth without the help of a doctor for no good reason, then it is most likely a mental health issue - in which case, we would generally not be able to convict her for a crime anyway." As far as I am aware, such individuals would be forcibly institutionalized in a psych ward. It may be different in the U.S. than here (U.K.), but I doubt it. "The trick would be the "because they feel like it" part. Did they feel like it because they got scared, the father left, etc. etc., or ??" Is there any real difference between them inducing miscarriage at 8 months and killing a baby at 9 months? Why? These reasons to kill can still exist after the child is born. "I don't know of any doctor that is going to do the procedure at that stage without some reason, so, does she attempt it herself?" They wouldn't abort at 8 months unless there were serious biological issues with the foetus or mother (and rightly so). "She obviously believes the harms of doing the abortion are less than going through with the pregnancy so, is this rational - if so, should be legal; if irrational, is this so irrational as to constitute severe mental deficiency?" If someone believes the harms of killing someone (outside the womb) are less than the evil of allowing them to exist should they legally be allowed to kill? Would any problems arise if we set this precedent? 1
point
such individuals would be forcibly institutionalized in a psych ward I used to think that was the case for the US, but a friend of a friend just went through this recently and I found that it isn't. Due to the Dusky v. United States Supreme Court decision: No person who, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against the person or to assist in the person’s own defense shall be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as such incapacity endures. So, severely mentally ill people are not prosecuted (unless they overcome the incapacity at some future point). There is a separate process for institutionalizing people who are believed to be a danger to themselves or others. difference between them inducing miscarriage at 8 months and killing a baby at 9 months During the pregnancy, the only method to escape any harms posed by the pregnancy is termination. After the baby is born, there are alternatives available to avoid the harm which are less than killing. For analogy, consider duty to retreat requirements for self-defense - if you can escape the harm without killing, then do so. If someone believes the harms of killing someone (outside the womb) are less than the evil of allowing them to exist should they legally be allowed to kill? See the alternatives part above. Additionally, isn't this the decision we make when we go to war, or use the death penalty, etc.? "There is a separate process for institutionalizing people who are believed to be a danger to themselves or others." Weren't they a danger to the living foetus inside them? If what you're saying is the legal precedent then I would like to see it changed. "During the pregnancy, the only method to escape any harms posed by the pregnancy is termination." If there are serious biological risks then I agree, if you're talking about the small risk from regular pregnancy then I don't. Note also that we were talking about killing because the father left or fear etc. which are reasons to kill that will continue to exist post birth. "After the baby is born, there are alternatives available to avoid the harm which are less than killing." If it's 8 months and we aren't talking about a serious biological risk then why can they not just bring the baby to term and put it up for adoption? "Additionally, isn't this the decision we make when we go to war, or use the death penalty, etc.?" Yes, and there is a reason that citizens cannot go around imposing the death penalty: the potential for abuse. The same goes for why individuals within a state aren't allowed to wage war. 1
point
Weren't they a danger to the living foetus inside them? The court in this case would only be weighing future danger, not past. If there were good chances this would happen again, the court would take that into consideration. If what you're saying is the legal precedent then I would like to see it changed. It would take a Constitutional Amendment which is fairly difficult here (only 17 amendments in more than 200 years). And is based on the idea that an incompetent person cannot aid in their own defense, and that criminal punishment can only have the desired deterrent effect on rational people. the small risk from regular pregnancy Pushing a bocci ball out of a vagina doesn't seem like a small harm to me. If someone were attempting to push one in a vagina or anus, should it be legal to shoot that person in self-defense? If it's 8 months and we aren't talking about a serious biological risk then why can they not just bring the baby to term and put it up for adoption? Like we have already discussed - this is what happens today. A doctor is not going to perform an abortion if it will not be of some benefit. there is a reason that citizens cannot go around imposing the death penalty Except we do allow people to kill based on potential harms - it's called self-defense. "The court in this case would only be weighing future danger, not past. If there were good chances this would happen again, the court would take that into consideration." I think that past actions are a good indication of future danger. "Pushing a bocci ball out of a vagina doesn't seem like a small harm to me." So in order to save oneself from a stretched vagina it's reasonable to kill a fully formed baby? Even though they could have had an abortion when they first noticed they were pregnant? Also note that since I agreed with you on rape we are talking about a stretched vagina that is entirely self-inflicted. "If someone were attempting to push one in a vagina or anus, should it be legal to shoot that person in self-defense?" Do you really think that giving birth to a baby is equivalent to rape? This is the equivalency that you are drawing here. "Like we have already discussed - this is what happens today. A doctor is not going to perform an abortion if it will not be of some benefit." Most states do not allow abortion after 22 weeks, with only ten states allowing abortions beyond this point. "Except we do allow people to kill based on potential harms - it's called self-defense." Self-defense only applies when one is under an immediate, credible threat, in addition the force used must be proportional to the threat. If a child kicks your shin and you shoot them in the face then you are going to prison. 1
point
I think that past actions are a good indication of future danger. It would be one of several factors, and would still be in consideration of preventing future harm, not as punishment of past acts. in order to save oneself from a stretched vagina it's reasonable to kill a fully formed baby Self-defense against fully-formed humans is reasonable to prevent a bocce ball from being pushed through an anus/vagina. Do you really think that giving birth to a baby is equivalent to rape? I'm not sure why you seem to insist that analogies/comparisons necessitate complete equivalence. It is better in some ways and worse in others. While rape may involve more mental harm, pregnancy will generally result in more and longer lasting physical harm, poses generally more financial harm, is more likely to be public and therefore expose the woman to social pressures, etc., etc. Most states do not allow This is just us agreeing that cases like the one you described would be difficult and rare, so let's agree to agree... Self-defense only applies when one is under an immediate, credible threat The harm is credible and imminent - in that, without action, it will happen. Should they wait until pregnancy is almost complete to take action? This would seem contrary to the other part of your post: "Even though they could have had an abortion when they first noticed they were pregnant?" in addition the force used must be proportional to the threat Self-defense does not require the use of the same amount of force (e.g. stabbing for stabbing threat, etc.), only reasonable force. The minimum amount of force to prevent the harm is always a reasonable amount. In the case of pregnancy, abortion is the minimum amount of force required to prevent the harms of pregnancy, thus, ipso facto, is reasonable. "Self-defense against fully-formed humans is reasonable to prevent a bocce ball from being pushed through an anus/vagina." If someone came up to you and tried to insert something into you, sure. If you voluntarily have sex and conceive a child then any ill-effects are completely self-inflicted. "It is better in some ways and worse in others." Yet overall, you surely agree that being raped is worse than giving birth? "pregnancy will generally result in more and longer lasting physical harm" Rape destroys peoples lives, small biological issues such as a stretched vagina are not even in the ballpark of the harm rape causes. Note also that rape's forcible nature results in a stretched vagina (especially if the woman isn't aroused, lubricated and dilated). "poses generally more financial harm" If you put the child up for adoption it's free. "is more likely to be public and therefore expose the woman to social pressures" Social pressures? Comparable to rape? "The harm is credible and imminent - in that, without action, it will happen. Should they wait until pregnancy is almost complete to take action? This would seem contrary to the other part of your post: "Even though they could have had an abortion when they first noticed they were pregnant?""" If somebody is polluting the air by driving a car is it OK for me to kill them in self-defense or would my action be disproportional to the threat? If I don't kill them then their emissions will harm my lungs, heart, brain etc. Self-defense is a legal term and I was using it in it's legal context, you are using it in terms of "any action taken to mitigate harm to oneself". Now, this definition is perfectly fine to use but taking actions that constitute "self-defense" under your definition are not always the right thing to do, as demonstrated by my example. As such, arguing that it's OK to do something because it constitutes "self-defense" under your definition does not hold as an argument. Note also that you haven't addressed the point about waiting 9 months to abort (we've already established exceptions). "The minimum amount of force to prevent the harm is always a reasonable amount." So it's OK to kill people who drive cars? 1
point
If someone came up to you and tried to insert something into you, sure There are only two ways for a successful pregnancy to end - the bocce ball out the vagina, or a slice across the stomach. Outside the realm of pregnancy, self-defense would unquestionably be warranted in either case. The same should be said for pregnancy. If you voluntarily have sex and conceive a child then any ill-effects are completely self-inflicted If you invite someone into your house, do you lose the right to self-defense for any harms they may inflict? Yet overall, you surely agree that being raped is worse than giving birth? Again, it is better in some ways and worse in others. Name the harms other than mental in which the average rape is more harmful than the average pregnancy brought to term. rape's forcible nature results in a stretched vagina Not even close to the way the childbirth does. If you put the child up for adoption it's free This ignores the costs of the pregnancy itself. Insurance deductibles (hoping that they even have insurance) for ultrasounds/labs/labor/delivery/ If somebody is polluting the air by driving a car is it OK for me to kill them in self-defense What is the minimum action you can take to prevent the harm? Wear a mask, move, elect people who aren't cozy with the fossil fuel industry and support alternatives that reduce pollution, etc. The minimum is reasonable. With the harms of pregnancy, termination is the minimum action that can prevent the harm. you haven't addressed the point about waiting 9 months to abort From my very first post: "Scarcity: Are there lots of 9 month pregnant women getting abortions to fit into a dress for a party?" We have also discussed that doctors would be unwilling to perform the procedure for no reason. Additionally, we discussed the probability that a woman that is trying to have this procedure at such a late stage with no actual reason, would likely be mentally deficient to the point of not being prosecutable by a law against it. I think we have addressed it fairly well actually. "the bocce ball out the vagina, or a slice across the stomach. self-defense would unquestionably be warranted in either case" So it's perfectly reasonable to take any action that decreases harm to oneself at massive cost to others? (in this case at the price of an innocent life). In other words, it is perfectly OK for me to kill you because you pollute the air? "If you invite someone into your house, do you lose the right to self-defense for any harms they may inflict?" While one can take great pleasure from having sex recreationally, it's biological function is to reproduce. One has the responsibility to take all available precautions against unwanted pregnancy (and vigilantly watch their menstrual cycle) if sexually active. Not doing this would be akin to letting random street people into your house, which would indeed be asking for trouble. "Name the harms other than mental in which the average rape is more harmful than the average pregnancy brought to term." Note my use of the word "overall", but by all means provide evidence that on average rape causes less physical damage than childbirth (I've read some pretty horrible case studies). "This ignores the costs of the pregnancy itself." What is the average increased cost of living when pregnant vs when not? I can imagine food costs increase but tobacco and alcohol costs, in addition to money spent going out decreases. More importantly, is any such a price lesser than that of a life? What monetary value do you personally place on a life? "Wear a mask, move, elect people who aren't cozy with the fossil fuel industry and support alternatives that reduce pollution, etc. The minimum is reasonable." Regardless of any of these actions, you will have to breathe the fumes of cars which will harm your health. As such, the minimum required to ensure no harm to oneself is killing or imprisoning people who drive cars. "doctors would be unwilling to perform the procedure for no reason... a woman that is trying to have this procedure at such a late stage with no actual reason, would likely be mentally deficient to the point of not being prosecutable by a law..." Awesome, so we agree that we shouldn't allow abortion at 9 months for no good reason. I hope that my asking for evidence for assertions is not taken as an unreasonable attack. I'm simply not convinced of their truth because I have seen no evidence for them and can see how they counter-intuitively might not hold to be true. 1
point
action that decreases harm to oneself at massive cost to others The factors are harm (not insignificant in this case) and available alternatives. responsibility to take all available precautions Many women who get abortions were taking some form of birth control. Does one lose the right to self-defense if they don't 'take all available precautions' - locking the door, bars on the windows, alarm, security guard, etc.? watch their menstrual cycle We can agree that once a mother knows she is pregnant and wants an abortion, the sooner the better - it's safer, cheaper, easier for the mother, but also mitigates the potential pain, etc. the baby might experience. Unfortunately many of the recent "pro-life" laws are pushing abortions later in the cycle by making them more expensive, adding additional steps, and making them generally harder to get. evidence that on average rape causes less physical damage than childbirth "What are common physical effects of sexual assault and rape? Bruising Bleeding (vaginal or anal) Difficulty walking Soreness Broken or dislocated bones Sexually transmitted infections and diseases Pregnancy" ------- The common physical effects of bringing pregnancy to term are more numerous, more severe, and obviously last much longer. What is the average increased cost of living when pregnant vs when not? from my previous answer: 'Insurance deductibles (hoping that they even have insurance) for ultrasounds/labs/labor/delivery/ Regardless of any of these actions, you will have to breathe the fumes of cars which will harm your health. These can eliminate exposure, or mitigate to below harmful levels. we agree that we shouldn't allow abortion at 9 months for no good reason My focus is less on when people should or should not get abortions, but more on what laws should exist. As we've discussed, a law would be ineffective in this case. I hope that my asking for evidence for assertions is not taken as an unreasonable attack. Please challenge everything, it helps me make my argument better. And thank you for your calm rational debate style. "Many women who get abortions were taking some form of birth control." This is why I also included "and vigilantly watch their menstrual cycle". "Does one lose the right to self-defense if they don't 'take all available precautions' - locking the door, bars on the windows, alarm, security guard, etc.?" No, but as we have covered already, pregnancy is self-inflicted (when it's rape we can agree). If I let in ten random street people in my home and get robbed I don't see how I can complain about being robbed (or claim insurance) because it was my fault. "We can agree that once a mother knows she is pregnant and wants an abortion, the sooner the better - it's safer, cheaper, easier for the mother, but also mitigates the potential pain, etc. the baby might experience." 100% agreed. "Unfortunately many of the recent "pro-life" laws are pushing abortions later in the cycle by making them more expensive, adding additional steps, and making them generally harder to get." I'd guess it's that certain states are making abortion completely illegal and thus making mothers travel out of state to abort. I don't agree with making abortion completely illegal, however many people are pro-life simply because of the perception that the American left stands for 9 month abortions without any reason. Fromwithin, for example, posts all day every day on this site about unrestricted abortions (I'm not saying he'd be pro-abortion if this were changed). The most powerful argument the pro-choice crowd can make is limited abortion, not everything goes. "The common physical effects of bringing pregnancy to term are more numerous, more severe, and obviously last much longer." There is no comparison study cited, your source simply listed the negative effects of rape. As such, any comparison drawn between the average physical harm of rape and the average physical harm of pregnancy is unsupported. "from my previous answer:..." You haven't answered my question (it would really require a source), you're assuming that overall costs go up, however I pointed out several costs that would go down. I'm not saying you're wrong, you just have no evidence for this claim. In any case, my main point in that paragraph was that even if an increase in living cost occurs, at what point is the child's life worth less than the financial cost? "These can eliminate exposure, or mitigate to below harmful levels." Is there a level of fumes that can be inhaled without any harm? I have no idea how you would even reduce your intake of fumes (short of moving to the countryside), but in any case you would experience some level of harm from the amount that you inhaled. "My focus is less on when people should or should not get abortions, but more on what laws should exist." So would you push for the legal limit on abortion to be 9 months with no restrictions? It's presently 6 months in most states (10 states allow abortion beyond this point, presumably in special cases). "As we've discussed, a law would be ineffective in this case." Do you mean because it's already illegal? If it were legal I promise you that there are doctors who would perform it. "thank you for your calm rational debate style." Thank you for the same. 1
point
watch their menstrual cycle At this point the woman would already be pregnant. Re: "Does one lose the right to self-defense" No 100% agreed. If I let in ten random street people in my home and get robbed I don't see how I can complain about being robbed People might say you deserve some blame, etc. but you didn't lose the right to self-defense, correct? (I think your "No" would indicate agreement with this.) e.g. the girl that dresses sexy - some people say she didn't do everything possible to discourage the rape - I don't think anyone says she has lost the right to self-defense against it. I'd guess it's that certain states are making abortion completely illegal States are making the running of clinics very expensive in order to shut them down, instituting waiting periods, removing insurance coverage for abortion, requiring vaginal ultrasounds, etc. etc. - all of which make it more expensive and take longer. the perception that the American left stands for 9 month abortions without any reason indeed - yet have we ever heard of even one case of that? There is no comparison study cited Sorry, I thought my other post was in this debate, but it is in a separate one. Here is from that post (which derives from a list compiled by IAmSparticus): a list of common side effects of pregnancy: exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks) altered appetite and senses of taste and smell nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester) heartburn and indigestion constipation weight gain dizziness and light-headedness bloating, swelling, fluid retention hemmorhoids abdominal cramps yeast infections congested, bloody nose acne and mild skin disorders skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen) mild to severe backache and strain increased headaches difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping increased urination and incontinence bleeding gums pica breast pain and discharge swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy inability to take regular medications shortness of breath higher blood pressure hair loss or increased facial/body hair tendency to anemia curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases) extreme pain on delivery hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover). Here's a list of common permanent effects of pregnancy: stretch marks (worse in younger women) loose skin permanent weight gain or redistribution abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh) changes to breasts increased foot size varicose veins scarring from episiotomy or c-section other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty) increased proclivity for hemmorhoids loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis) higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates) Here's a list of occassional side effects of pregnancy: complications of episiotomy hyperemesis gravidarum temporary and permanent injury to back severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies) dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele) pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies) eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death) gestational diabetes placenta previa anemia (which can be life-threatening) thrombocytopenic purpura severe cramping embolism (blood clots) medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby) diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication) serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis) hormonal imbalance ectopic pregnancy (risk of death) broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone") hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures) severe post-partum depression and psychosis research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease ------------ RE:"'Insurance deductibles (hoping that they even have insurance) for ultrasounds/labs/labor/delivery/ Thousands with insurance - 10s of thousands without. RE:"maternity clothes, time off work" Will vary from case to case, but range from hundreds to thousands. Working too many hours while pregnant can be dangerous ref + the time off for recovery afterwards Here's a ref for average wages for fertile ages I pointed out several costs that would go down. Luckily less than 15% of women smoke ref - (will look to see if I can find something that breaks it down by age.) It seems most women don't normally drink an amount that would be unhealthy during pregnancy either: ref ref at what point is the child's life worth less than the financial cost The financial cost is just additive to the other harms, including physical, that are part of pregnancy. 9 months with no restrictions I'll direct you back to my first post in the debate: "It would be very difficult to come up with any time where it should be illegal." That's where I lay out the myriad reasons why. Do you mean because it's already illegal? I meant our discussion on whether doctors would do it if there was no reason - e.g. your post: "They wouldn't abort at 8 months unless there were serious biological issues with the foetus or mother (and rightly so)." and whether a law would be effective - e.g. my post: "If we contrive a case where there is some woman who deliberately kills her child days before birth without the help of a doctor for no good reason, then it is most likely a mental health issue - in which case, we would generally not be able to convict her for a crime anyway." "At this point the woman would already be pregnant." I'm arguing against 9 month abortion, not all abortion. "People might say you deserve some blame, etc. but you didn't lose the right to self-defense, correct?" Of course not, but we already covered why self-defense isn't a sufficient argument here with the car fume analogy. Further, my point here was that any harms of pregnancy (unless raped) are entirely self-inflicted. "the girl that dresses sexy - some people say she didn't do everything possible to discourage the rape - I don't think anyone says she has lost the right to self-defense against it." First of all, there is a difference between not doing everything possible to discourage something and taking an action that explicitly exists for the purposes of doing something (e.g. sex). Second of all, there is no evidence (as far as I am aware) that wearing revealing clothing increases the chances of being raped. I could see how it might increase the chances of being groped, but not raped (still no evidence for this though). "States are making the running of clinics very expensive in order to shut them down" How do they do this? "instituting waiting periods, removing insurance coverage for abortion, requiring vaginal ultrasounds, etc. etc. - all of which make it more expensive and take longer." Do you know the reason that waiting periods exist? As for ultrasounds I'd imagine that it's to determine the age of the child. "indeed - yet have we ever heard of even one case of that?" You argued for 9 month abortions on the grounds of self-defense. Perhaps you don't consider yourself on the left, but people will perceive you as being on the left. "Sorry, I thought my other post was in this debate, but it is in a separate one. Here is from that post.... exhaustion..." You haven't given comparative evidence, this is just a list of potential negative side effects of pregnancy. As such, you cannot make the claim that "pregnancy on average is more physically harmful than rape". It's also interesting that pregnancy has physical positives which are conveniently omitted such as hormonal releases (rape hasn't got any positives that I can see). Note that we aren't even looking at the psychological effects and holistically comparing the negative effects of pregnancy and the negative effects of rape. "Thousands with insurance..." Surely at least some women spend less money during their pregnancy than they would otherwise? Especially if they're insured? Often the price of living will increase though and I'm even happy to concede that on average living prices may increase. However then we come to my main point: at what point is the monetary cost outweighed by the value of a life? "It seems most women don't normally drink an amount that would be unhealthy during pregnancy either:... Luckily less than 15% of women smoke" Exactly, these are costs that decrease as a result of pregnancy. Americans on average spend $8.4k each year on going out (Source 1) and when pregnant these costs all but disappear. I'd be happy to concede the point about financial cost but neither of us can estimate the average increase/decrease in living cost when pregnant. "The financial cost is just additive to the other harms, including physical, that are part of pregnancy." OK then, at what point does the financial cost and physical cost outweigh the value of a life? I draw the line in the extreme examples where, for instance, the mother has a severe health risk. "That's where I lay out the myriad reasons why." Here I'm asking your legal position on 9 month abortions, not your reasoning for it. I take your answer as legal agreement with 9 month abortions for any reason. "I meant our discussion on whether doctors would do it if there was no reason - e.g. your post: "They wouldn't abort at 8 months unless there were serious biological issues with the foetus or mother (and rightly so)."" If it were legal to do so, plenty of doctors would do it. I'm sure if you were a doctor, you would, right? "If we contrive a case where there is some woman who deliberately kills her child days before birth without the help of a doctor for no good reason, then it is most likely a mental health issue - in which case, we would generally not be able to convict her for a crime anyway." Even if the law were like this, which I'm skeptical that it is, (because killing one's child is not solely a danger to oneself: it is also a danger to others) it still wouldn't justify permitting people to murder their children. When you see bad laws that create problems and suffering should you simply accept them or attempt to abolish/reform them? Sources: 1
point
I'm arguing against 9 month abortion, not all abortion. We can circle back after we deal with 9 months, but, at some point, I would like to know what factors you use to determine whether it should be legal or not which change from month 9 to month 8 to month 7, etc. we already covered why self-defense isn't a sufficient argument We are trying to establish the individual factors involved - in this case, how much preventative is required in order to maintain a right to self-defense. You seem to agree that preventatives are not a requirement. car fume analogy The only factor left for the car analogy is the minimum level of harm required to act against the other person. And, while I think that minimum may be blurry - based on alternatives available, etc., I think everyone would agree that rape far surpasses that minimum. I further contend that pregnancy is similar in terms of harms (some rapes will pose more harm than some pregnancies and vice-versa), thus pregnancy exceeds that minimum as well. any harms of pregnancy (unless raped) are entirely self-inflicted Let's take another example. Say a woman has agreed to sex and the sex has begun - can a woman then change her mind? If she does, must the sex stop, or can it continue since she previously consented? If it did not stop, could she act in self-defense to stop it? there is a difference between not doing everything possible to discourage something and taking an action that explicitly exists for the purposes of doing something What about doing something known to increase the likelihood? If you drink (esp. heavily), or go to places where there is heavy drinking, your chance of getting raped goes up significantly (ref). Therefore, do you lose the right to self defense in this case? How do they do this? (Re: 'States are making the running of clinics very expensive in order to shut them down') They are called TRAP (Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers) Laws - requiring 8 foot hallways, special ventilation systems, etc. ref the reason that waiting periods exist Ostensibly for the same reason that people advocated waiting periods for guns - as a cool down period to prevent rash action. Although it is those same people who said we should not have waiting periods for guns who are saying we should have one for abortions... I created a debate a few years back about linking the two, but it didn't really get any traction. As for ultrasounds I'd imagine that it's to determine the age of the child. Age is generally determined by calculating from the last menstruation. If you are going to get an abortion, why would it be necessary to determine the age of the child? The ultrasounds are done specifically to have women see/hear the child and persuade them not to abort. Perhaps you don't consider yourself on the left, but people will perceive you as being on the left I am not registered with any party, but yes, I have voted mostly for Democrats lately. This post was in response to me asking if we know of any case where a 9 month abortion was sought for no reason. Since the response doesn't seem to go with the question, I'll ask it again. You haven't given comparative evidence I have given the common harms posed by both. (and, yes, people should consider the benefits as well: loss of period, bigger breasts (though tender and leaking), better hair, nails, and skin, etc.) Note that we aren't even looking at the psychological effects For two reasons. 1) I concede that rape will commonly carry with it more mental anguish. 2) This isn't useful information when formulating a good abortion law since, while common, there may be cases where a rape causes little to no mental harm - the hot Cosby, victim in coma, etc. and cases where pregnancy causes a high degree of mental harm - the father is black and your husband is white, etc. Exactly, these are costs that decrease The point was that the decreases mentioned apply to a small minority of women. Surely at least some women spend less money Some more, some less, of course - this was about the normal/average case. -"I'm even happy to concede that on average living prices may increase." cool. at what point is the monetary cost outweighed by the value of a life? Again, this is just a harm coetaneous to the physical harms. I agree the physical harms are more persuasive, but that doesn't mean we should refrain from considering that other harms exist as well. Americans on average spend $8.4k each year on going out (Source 1) and when pregnant these costs all but disappear. We should not assume that all pregnant women completely stop going out. From part 2 of that source, only 22% of women are going out looking for a match (and even some pregnant women will be doing the same). Here I'm asking your legal position on 9 month abortions, not your reasoning for it. I believe I gave both my position: "[i]t would be very difficult to come up with any time where it should be illegal", and my reasoning for it in that post. I take your answer as legal agreement with 9 month abortions for any reason. I leave room that someone might come up with a valid law, but I can't think of any at the moment that would meet the criteria laid out in my first post. I'm sure if you were a doctor, you would, right? If they flat out said it was for no reason, I would refer them to a good psychiatrist. An abortion at that time for no medical reason would pose more harm to the mother than proceeding normally, so the philosophy of "do no harm" would suggest that a doctor not perform the procedure in this case, even if it were legal. Even if the law were like this, which I'm skeptical that it is Skeptical of which part - that lack of cognitive ability can be used as a legal defense for these type of crimes? I think I have already mentioned the "Dusky v. United States" Supreme Court decision, and I would point out, not knowing which part of the UK you are from, that England, Wales, and Scottland all have similar provisions. When you see bad laws that create problems and suffering should you simply accept them or attempt to abolish/reform them? I think the way we treat the insanity defense is roughly the least bad we can do considering all the factors. (Except we should probably provide a higher level of treatment, which we typically don't because of the monetary expense.) The justification for the insanity defense is that an incompetent person cannot aid in their own defense, and that punishment can only have the desired deterrent effect on rational people - do you disagree with that reasoning? "I would like to know what factors you use to determine whether it should be legal or not which change from month 9 to month 8 to month 7" We already dealt with exceptions, so I'll strictly deal with time-limits for standard cases with no medical reason. At the beginning of month four, we have a baby with all it's organs and a functional nervous system that is moving: stretching, making faces, sucking it's thumb etc. As such, I believe abortions should, in the vast majority of cases, be illegal after 4 months/16 weeks. "You seem to agree that preventatives are not a requirement." Of course, if you go through a rough neighbourhood you do not lose the right to self-defense. However if you start provoking random people into fights then you do. As I say, there is a difference between not taking actions to prevent something and taking actions that actively cause it. "The only factor left for the car analogy is the minimum level of harm required to act against the other person." The minimum level of harm is killing or imprisoning them, there is no way that you won't breathe their pollution if you allow them to drive. "I further contend that pregnancy is similar in terms of harms (some rapes will pose more harm than some pregnancies and vice-versa)" Some tooth extractions will pose more harm than pregnancies, so I can contend, by the same token, that tooth extractions are similar in terms of harm. "Say a woman has agreed to sex and the sex has begun - can a woman then change her mind? If she does, must the sex stop, or can it continue since she previously consented? If it did not stop, could she act in self-defense to stop it? If it did not stop, could she act in self-defense to stop it?" She can indeed, certainly. Just like you can go on a date, be unsatisfied and leave. Doing so is not specifically courting whatever bad reaction you get from the other party. However, if you insult the person and take no care for their feelings when you inform them that you are leaving, you are to blame for the negative reaction that will ensue. This links to using contraception and vigilantly watching one's menstrual cycle if sexually active (which most women actually do by the way). "What about doing something known to increase the likelihood? If you drink (esp. heavily), or go to places where there is heavy drinking, your chance of getting raped goes up significantly (ref). Therefore, do you lose the right to self defense in this case?" Nope, but if you fail to take any precaution for your own safety then it can be said that you are in part to blame for whatever happens. This is completely different to pregnancy where you are entirely to blame. "They are called TRAP (Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers) Laws" That sucks, all the more reason to try to find a more palatable middle ground. "Ostensibly for the same reason that people advocated waiting periods for guns - as a cool down period to prevent rash action." I looked into it and they're only 24-72 hour wait periods (depending on state). I don't see anything wrong with that, the baby isn't developing an incredible amount in such a short time. I saw that this can in some rare cases actually mean 8 day waiting periods which I do have a problem with, though this would be a problem with implementation. "Age is generally determined by calculating from the last menstruation. If you are going to get an abortion, why would it be necessary to determine the age of the child?" Would it not be possible to simply lie? "The ultrasounds are done specifically to have women see/hear the child and persuade them not to abort." That's good, if you're going to end a life then it should be a difficult decision that is made with full information. So many times I hear people talk about foetuses as merely "bundles of cells" which begins accurate and ends entirely false (though technically everyone is a bundle of cells, I suppose). "I am not registered with any party, but yes, I have voted mostly for Democrats lately." My point is that you're adding to the perception that the left supports no restriction on abortion, which is a major selling point the pro-life crowd use to persuade people with more moderate views. "Since the response doesn't seem to go with the question, I'll ask it again." What question? "I have given the common harms posed by both." Without comparative evidence comparative claims cannot be made. Common side effects of rape include death (I'd wager that this is far more common from rape than pregnancy too). "I concede that rape will commonly carry with it more mental anguish." I don't understand how pregnancy is particularly comparable to rape. Well, except perhaps that both have the potential to ruin your life, albeit in completely different ways. "The point was that the decreases mentioned apply to a small minority of women." Most women spend a lot of money going out, which is just one cost that decreases during pregnancy. You are assuming that costs increase on average without data. ""I'm even happy to concede that on average living prices may increase."" Note the bolded may, but yes I don't think this point is all too relevant since the increase in costs is less than my valuation of a conscious life. Also, abortion does cost money (sometimes over $3k late-term). "Again, this is just a harm coetaneous to the physical harms." I asked a more inclusive version of this question later "at what point does the financial cost and physical cost outweigh the value of a life?" "We should not assume that all pregnant women completely stop going out." Not completely, I do however think that this cost drastically decreases. "only 22% of women are going out looking for a match (and even some pregnant women will be doing the same)" I wasn't looking at that as the reason, more like the lack of energy and other biological pressures forcing pregnant women to relax and take it easy. "I leave room that someone might come up with a valid law, but I can't think of any at the moment that would meet the criteria laid out in my first post." What issue do you take with the 6 month legal limit that currently exists in most states? "If they flat out said it was for no reason, I would refer them to a good psychiatrist." What about for economic reasons? Surely you would refer them to an adoption agency? "An abortion at that time for no medical reason would pose more harm to the mother than proceeding normally" At what time do you believe that abortion poses more harm to the mother than proceeding normally and would you accept that as a legal limitation? "Skeptical of which part" That purposeful miscarriage is deemed as only a danger to oneself despite the fact that it's demonstrably a danger to others (because it kills the baby). "I think the way we treat the insanity defense is roughly the least bad we can do considering all the factors." So if there is a woman that gets pregnant and induces miscarriage every 9 months for sadistic pleasure we should be permissive of it? "The justification for the insanity defense is that an incompetent person cannot aid in their own defense, and that punishment can only have the desired deterrent effect on rational people - do you disagree with that reasoning?" I don't disagree with the first part, and I think the only reason you bring it up is because you misconstrued what I said earlier (which should be clearer now due to my reply to "Skeptical of which part"). Imprisonment doesn't only serve the purposes of deterrent and rehabilitation, it also serves to reduce harmful actions by removing harmful actors from society for a time (or permanently). By removing people who harm others from society, we prevent them from harming people in society (at least for a time) thus decreasing the instances of harmful behaviors, e.g. violence, in society. 0
points
0
points
Is a baby outside the womb the same, given that it also cannot survive without constant support? No. The dictionary defines a parasite as:- an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. The argument you seem to be making is that the baby is dependent on it's mother for life and is inflicting a cost upon the mother, which is why you call it a parasite. This doesn't change after the baby is born; it is still completely reliant on the mother and this comes at a cost to her, so why is killing a baby outside the womb not acceptable? 2
points
1
point
First of all, I think you are assuming that I am "pro-life" and this is coloring your reading of what I am saying: I am not. I do, however, believe that to think abortion at 9 months is acceptable is to completely dismiss the value of the baby's life simply because another value is in conflict. "A fetus does not give a mother a choice about what it takes from her." True, though the foetus also did not have the choice to be conceived. Further, the baby must be cared for by the state at everyone's expense if nobody is willing to care for it (no choice there). As such, it is still in a way a parasite that requires a host to survive. 1
point
The argument you seem to be making is that the baby is dependent on it's mother for life and is inflicting a cost upon the mother The dictionary is making the argument. A fetus is a parasite and a newborn is not. Also, there is no possessive form of "it". If you want people to talk to you like they would talk to an intelligent person, then firstly please learn the basic rules of your own native language. "The dictionary is making the argument." Argumentum ad dictionarium? So the bad thing about a parasite is that it resides within you and not that it imposes a cost upon you? "Also, there is no possessive form of "it"." You're right, I often mess up "its". If you want to grammar-Nazi battle then I think you'll find that "its" is the possessive form of it, and thus there is a possessive form. 1
point
Argumentum ad dictionarium? I don't even know what that is. You implied a newborn is still a parasite and I used the dictionary to show you why you are wrong. Besides which, an argumentum ad dictonarium is significantly more likely to be correct than an argumentum ad latin. When you are wrong, you don't suddenly become correct by using a language which has been dead for thousands of years. "I don't even know what that is." That's probably why you used the fallacy. "You implied a newborn is still a parasite and I used the dictionary to show you why you are wrong." Actually, I'm discussing the root of the issue. I'm looking at why a parasite is bad to see why a baby being a parasite would make it OK to kill it. Are social parasites less pernicious than biological parasites? Why? 1
point
so why is killing a baby outside the womb not acceptable? The reason that killing is ok before birth and not after is the existence of other alternatives. Before birth, the only method to prevent the harms of the pregnancy is abortion, after birth, there are other ways to avoid the harms/costs associated with the child. 1
point
For those parents, care for the child may be less harmful, or even, to stay with the parasite theme, symbiotic. For me, I tend to focus less on the parasite line of argument since it isn't going to convince anyone, (if anything, probably the opposite), and focus more on the application of self-defense rules, and the other factors I posted. "For those parents, care for the child may be less harmful, or even, to stay with the parasite theme, symbiotic." I'd say that this is the case for any mother to a degree though, especially when you consider that they are propagating their genetic code. There also are a multitude of children in state care, not to mention that adoptive parents are financially rewarded by the state which of course comes from taxes. "(I) focus more on the application of self-defense rules" If you're talking about cases where the risk is substantial due to idiosyncrasies then sure. If you're talking about the fact that all pregnancies contain a small element of risk (in modernity) then I don't agree. 1
point
they are propagating their genetic code Ensuring that portions of your ACTG pattern makes it some distance into the future isn't exactly the most compelling benefit for all women. adoptive parents are financially rewarded by the state This is a benefit for the adoptive parents, not the biological mother. If you're talking about the fact that all pregnancies contain a small element of risk (in modernity) then I don't agree. Yes, I contend that all pregnancies pose some harm to the mother ref "Ensuring that portions of your ACTG pattern makes it some distance into the future isn't exactly the most compelling benefit for all women." Not all women, merely the woman whose child it is. "This is a benefit for the adoptive parents, not the biological mother." I'm making the argument that the child is still imposing a cost on people who are unwilling to pay it. "Yes, I contend that all pregnancies pose some harm to the mother ref" I was agreeing with the idea that pregnancies do come with risks, I was disagreeing that one can argue that all abortions can be justified by citing self-defense. Moreover, one cannot fail to notice that they are pregnant for six or more months. To begin, the cessation of menstruation would alert any healthy woman of pregnancy within two months. 1
point
Not all women, merely the woman whose child it is How is it some great benefit for her? the child is still imposing a cost on people who are unwilling to pay it. apparently we are willing to pay it. I was disagreeing that one can argue that all abortions can be justified by citing self-defense. I typically also mention: Mercy - a fetus that is in pain and will not live. Selective reductions - from triplets to twins, or twins to a single, etc. - to improve the overall chances for those remaining. Which abortions cannot be justified under those or self-defense? one cannot fail to notice that they are pregnant for six or more months It is not the common pregnancy, but it certainly happens ref "How is it some great benefit for her?" Propagation of our genetic code is one of our primary biological drives. "apparently we are willing to pay it." Actually, politicians decided that the citizens would pay it and by no means are the citizenry of the U.S. fond of paying taxes. "Mercy - a fetus that is in pain and will not live." Abort away. "Selective reductions - from triplets to twins, or twins to a single, etc. - to improve the overall chances for those remaining." Where this is medically advisable, go for it. "It is not the common pregnancy, but it certainly happens ref" I wouldn't class someone with stage five endometriosis as healthy considering such individuals are usually infertile. As I say, I'm all for making exceptions when necessary but to set the rule that everything is acceptable is to completely ignore the value of that human life. Babies even recognize music that was played to them in the womb (Source 1) and so I find it amazing that some people actually think that killing a fully formed 8 month baby is perfectly permissible. Sources: 1
point
Propagation of our genetic code is one of our primary biological drives. Maybe for some people, but certainly not all. Evolution favored a level of sex drive within a population, but it didn't count on birth control. Now we have a sex drive, but not necessarily a drive to procreate. Lots of people choose not to have children at all (with or without abortion.) That some of her genes exist outside of her is not of great benefit to the mother - only the mental benefit she assigns it. politicians decided If we were highly against it, we would elect politicians who vote that way. Abort away and go for it Missed one: Which abortions cannot be justified under those or self-defense? is to completely ignore the value of that human life I would contend that this is not exactly true. Saying that it should not be illegal is different than saying lets not work on ways to reduce it. Should smoking/drinking be illegal? Can people and society do things to reduce them separately from making crimes out of them? Pro-Life and Pro-Choice (and Pro-Choice-of-Life) folks should all just work towards recducing abortions in ways other than making the woman a criminal - education, subsidized contraception, subsidized pre-natal care, etc., etc. "Maybe for some people, but certainly not all. Evolution favored a level of sex drive within a population, but it didn't count on birth control. Now we have a sex drive, but not necessarily a drive to procreate." Your sex drive is but a part of your biological drive to self-propagate. One's paternal and maternal instincts are another part of this drive. It's also why we find babies, kittens and other animal babies so cute. Further, it is the same drive behind wanting to be remembered through statues and such: the desire to continue to exist in some form beyond death. "If we were highly against it, we would elect politicians who vote that way." Let's say that this is true (which it isn't, and would mean that you believe the people support everything Trump does), are there not still a minority of people who do not want to pay taxes and thus must be forced to do so? "Which abortions cannot be justified under those or self-defense?" We already went over that; any case where the mother is not under a serious biological threat. "Should smoking/drinking be illegal?" No. "Pro-Life and Pro-Choice (and Pro-Choice-of-Life) folks should all just work towards recducing abortions in ways other than making the woman a criminal - education, subsidized contraception, subsidized pre-natal care, etc., etc." Should we do this with murder too? 1
point
Your sex drive is but a part of your biological drive to self-propagate. One's paternal and maternal instincts are another part of this drive. You only get "paternal" and "maternal" instincts once you have kids you dopey fuck. Are you saying you get the urge to be a father to random small children? Honestly Winston, you say the most stupid things. You are so busy trying to complicate your language that you rarely see the utter stupidity in the thinking which catalyses it. 1
point
1
point
biological drive to self-propagate Lots of people choose not to have any children. people who do not want to pay taxes and thus must be forced to do so If you do not want to pay those taxes, you have the option of moving elsewhere. serious biological threat needs further elucidation - definition and/or examples of what is and is not covered. "Should smoking/drinking be illegal?" No. If smoking/drinking can result in the deaths of other people, then doesn't this "completely ignore the value of that human life"? Should we do this with murder We should do this with self-defense... Though, we should go where logic takes us with murder as well. "Lots of people choose not to have any children." They still have this drive, though it is channeled into care of pets and subordinate humans or though achievement, recognition and "leaving one's mark on the world". "If you do not want to pay those taxes, you have the option of moving elsewhere." So it's a matter of "if you don't like it, get out?". Does this apply if abortion is completely illegal too? Where is it possible to move that one doesn't have to pay taxes and yet can actually survive? "needs further elucidation - definition and/or examples of what is and is not covered." We discussed this already in the thread between you and me. Ask what you want to know that we haven't already covered. "If smoking/drinking can result in the deaths of other people, then doesn't this "completely ignore the value of that human life"?" No, because people are allowed to make their own mistakes when they are the only one affected. Taking your own life is perfectly permissible, taking the life of someone else isn't. "We should do this with self-defense... Though, we should go where logic takes us with murder as well." He said that we should reduce abortions only in ways that does not make the woman a criminal, it is obvious then to ask why we shouldn't do this with murder too. A woman that has an abortion at 9 months has killed a fully formed conscious human, after all. Should we stop prosecuting murders and instead tackle the issue only with education? Once again, self defense, legally speaking, has to be proportional to the threat. 1
point
But the harms and costs are then given to someone who can handle them, as opposed to someone who is not in the position to. After birth, the baby is no longer completely reliant on its mother, and in fact, doesn't even need its own biological mother to thrive. That is not the case when it is still in the womb. We still, in almost all cases, force the tax payer to look after the child (adoptive parents are reimbursed by the state). As such, if one is making the argument that dependence and forced cost are sufficient reason to kill a foetus at 9 months then to be consistent one should also think the same post-birth. In case you aren't aware, I agree with abortion but I'm finding that the 9 month arguments are actually worse than the pro-life no exception after conception arguments. 1
point
0
points
You will never hear the Democrat Party explain which babies must be saved from abortion. For the Democrat Party, the wording "health of mother" must be included in any abortion law. Do you know why this is? They make sure that so called health issues must include depression! In this way, all any mother has to say to get an abortion at any stage, is that she is depressed, and VIOLA, she gets to have an abortion! The Democrat Party refuses to even mention which abortions would ever be denied, because there are NONE that would be denied under their abortion Bills. There are eight or nine No Restriction abortion States in America, and the Democrat Party wants to make sure they will contunue. Any mother in America who wants an abortion can travel to those Staes to get an abortion for any reason at any stage. This is what you support when voting for the Democrat Party. 1
point
You will never hear the Democrat Party explain which babies must be saved from abortion. Let's save all of them - just not through making abortion a criminal act. The Democrat Party refuses to even mention which abortions would ever be denied The party has mixed opinions, but yes I think basically all abortions should be legal (see also) 1
point
I don't see abortion as ever being a valid option. I don't think it is better to get an abortion at all. I think people should be taught that sex leads to pregnancy, and it should be avoided outside of marriage. What do I think about marriage? I believe that a Christ centered life is perfectly tailored to marriage. Jesus teaches how to love, and in no other place is the fruit of that more obvious than when practiced by two people who really believe in it. See, abortion is only a problem for those who engage in sexual immorality. I don't buy the whole rape story. First of all, I know how easy it is for a woman to keep a man from penetrating. Second of all, I know too many women who lie about being raped. Thirdly, I don't think rape is a valid excuse for an abortion. I am certain that every one of us is descended from at least one woman who was raped. To condemn these little bastards is to condemn myself. I ain't doing it. So yeah, that is truthfully my opinion. If you find it insensitive, I don't really care. I have to be against abortion. There is nothing good I can see in it. I am not the judge of anyone. Have I known people who have had abortions? Yes, plenty of them. Do I hate them for it? Not at all, I don't even look at them differently. I also know drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, thieves, robbers, killers, and all sorts of people that you wouldn't want your kids around. Do I treat them badly because of their sin? No, I do not. I am not their judge. All I can do is love them anyway and point them to The Way. I can't be for abortion though, and I don't think it should ever be encouraged. I don't think it gets to the root of the problem. People want to have sex without having to deal with any of the responsibility that goes with it. I say these people are acting in a godless manner and are being deceived concerning the reality of sexual immorality. 1
point
2 questions. 1) You seem to have the position that abortion is morally wrong, but not necessarily that it should be illegal. Could you confirm/deny, or explain which laws you think should exist? 2) What are your thoughts on when self-defense should be legal - to protect one's life, to prevent rape, to protect one's property, etc.? I'm not a lawyer, thankfully. I also don't think my opinion really matters. I don't really think abortion should be legal, but it is, so that is that, right? I'm sure there are plenty of valid reasons to defend oneself. There are also many ways of defending the self that don't involve using lethal force. 1
point
foetal is an acceptable alternate spelling. |
