Abortion

[jpl458]

I agree with Denis Miller, when he was describing how the voting on abortion shouls be handled, Quote "One D___k, no vote"

 

[AccessBlaster]

I agree with Trump leave it up to the states.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm a radical on this one, but ... there are three kinds of rights mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. There are federally imposed and managed rights; there are state imposed and managed rights; and there are individual rights. (Actually, described in the 9th and 10th amendments.) I think abortion should be an individual right, a right left to the people.

 

[conception_native_0123]

leave it up to the states

I just saw a front page story in the local paper here tonight. something about arizona banning abortion?

 

[NauticalGent]

I agree with Trump leave it up to the states.

Not just Trump, but the Constitution. I KNOW you know this, that was for some who just don't "get" it.

 

[ebs17]

In the former GDR (East Germany), abortions were allowed up to the twelfth week, and there was not much discussion about it. One did not get the impression that the women decided to have an abortion lightly.
But there was also a welcoming culture in society for the children. For the individual woman, one (more) child was not a catastrophe for personal finances and personal professional career. The state wanted children and backed it up with actions (kindergarten, daycare) and other services.
In your view, the GDR was not only left-wing, but communist.

 

[pbaldy]

I've always shared Pat's viewpoint. At some point in time the clump of cells becomes a life. That life is as worthy of protection before it's born as after. Debating when that point is would be just as productive as the current debates, but at least it would be more on point.

Seen another way, if a pregnant woman was in an accident and was going to die, and doctors could successfully deliver her baby, that baby was beyond a clump of cells.

My wife is very pro-abortion, but shares my view. We were both comfortable with Row v Wade as it at least tried to define that point in time.

 

[Isaac]

I agree with Denis Miller, when he was describing how the voting on abortion shouls be handled, Quote "One D___k, no vote"

The problem is, that's not the way we handle literally ANY other voting on any issues.

I can still vote even though the government makes laws about child support which do not apply to me, makes laws about guns which I don't have, makes laws about types of commerce I am not involved in, etc. We make laws protecting other people's children all day long, and nobody complains that "they're not your children, so don't vote".

It's odd that the only place liberals want such a "invested personal stake required to vote", is in abortion - but are fine with tossing it out the window everywhere else.

If it weren't for double standards, libs would have no standards at all

 

[moke123]

 

[The_Doc_Man]

To be perfectly clear, the reason this is left to the state is because at some point in time there are TWO people personally affected by the decision, it is not just the mother which would make it a right of the people.

Please be aware that under "freedom of religion" there is this consideration... not ONLY for Jewish women, but they ARE examples of this: Judaism doesn't consider that there IS a second person until after the umbilicus has been cut. Many of the Evangelical sub-denominations do not consider that there is a second person until first breath. And the state cannot be involved in that discussion because of separation of church and state being a requirement of the constitution. So Pat, your statement is colored by your personal beliefs which don't have to match up with others. Not saying you shouldn't have your beliefs - but you should realize their scope might not be universal. Otherwise there would be no controversy and no states moving to restore at least some rights.

Just for the record, when I got married, my wife and I agreed that we would follow any pregnancy to term - but it never happened and now, with both of us in our 70s, it is long past the point of "ain't gonna happen." But the thing is, we know that our beliefs are not the same as the beliefs of others. When I was still a Christian (Methodist) - a LONG time ago - it came up in a discussion and I asked my minister. He said that abortion was always a matter of conscience.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Pat, I will re-emphasize that I don't recommend abortion as a decision for anyone. I leave that decision to whoever it is that seeks an abortion. They have enough grief already if they are considering such an action. I don't need to add more.

I will add that those states lacking even therapeutic abortion options are ignoring the rare but non-zero occurrence of congenital conditions such as Tay-Sachs syndrome or perhaps anencephaly. There is also the issue of pregnancy by r.a.p.e. - again, rare but non-zero.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The question is not whether I think it is murder. For previously stated reasons, some people think it is not, and it is a belief widely shared within some religions. Actually, I'm not in favor of late-term abortion unless there is a strong medical reason either. My position is that I question whether I have the right to impose my viewpoint on someone else whose viewpoint is shared by a moderately large and well-recognized group, even if not widely held in the overall population. Where do we enter the zone called "the tyranny of the majority"?

 

[conception_native_0123]

We can agree to disagree on that point.

I HATE ending any argument that way. I always have.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I HATE ending any argument that way. I always have.

Adam, I understand and actually sympathize. However, my comment/question about "the tyranny of the majority" still remains relevant.

 

[conception_native_0123]

Her husband raped her

well I sympathize I guess. that's a tough situation to say the least.

 

[conception_native_0123]

my comment/question about "the tyranny of the majority" still remains relevant.

I know richard. my comment was a neutral one, with regard to the arguments here. Just thought I would chime in. to somewhat make a point I guess.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

A constructional approach to whether the fetus is human!!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1869669083915882977

 

[Jon]

If an unborn is one microsecond from birth, do some people believe that terminating that "entity" is not murder? Let's keep splitting that down to such a small period of time that the laws of physics mean that the "entity" has not physically changed during birth verses just prior to birth. Read that as all the cells are in the exact same state, all the molecules are in the exact same locations. Then what we are dealing with is the semantic definition of a child (with rights) based on location, rather than its physical state. If the child is outside, it is murder, but why would it not also be considered murder if it was inside?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If the child is outside, it is murder, but why would it not also be considered murder if it was inside?

One of the "tests" made according to those who believe this way is the severing of the umbilicus. That is, to some religions, the exact moment at which the fetus becomes a separate person. Another test is that moment when the fetus takes that first breath to start getting oxygen on its own rather than from mother's blood supply. For those who believe this way, the issue being discussed here isn't scientific. It is based on religious dogma. And I have no business sticking my nose into someone else's personal religious beliefs. The question isn't when the fetus becomes a baby from my viewpoint. It is when the pregnant woman things the fetus becomes a baby - and that isn't a scientific question. It is a personal philosophy question, the answer to which also defines the answer to your question, Jon. When do we gain the right to override a person's religious beliefs on a precise point of fetal/baby transition?

Particularly in the USA, the problem involves religious freedom. To arbitrarily pick one time over another is to indirectly favor or disfavor a particular religion, and we aren't supposed to do that. I know that we have in the past - such as banning the religious use of ganja weed commonly used by some of the folks from Caribbean nations. I know that some states allow polygamy because some religions allow it. I know that some religious - Church of Christ Scientist for one - who can refuse treatment for someone on religious grounds. My grandmother died of pneumonia because she refused treatment for three days after an accident. My point is that we make all sorts of exceptions for religions already, and some of them CAN be life-threatening. How is this any different?

Also, please note that my personal beliefs about that transition aren't in play here. My beliefs in the morality of interfering with another person's beliefs are where this discussion originates.

 

[AccessBlaster]

When a woman terminates a pregnancy they will refer to it as a fetus. But if the same woman dies in a car accident on the way to get the abortion, she died with her unborn baby.

On one hand you are devoid of emotions, it's just a clump of cells like cancer. On the other hand emotions run high because two people have died.