Do you support Roe Vs. Wade?

[Super Mikey]

It's a strong argument, I'll concede. Pragmatically speaking, I don't think making abortion illegal is congruent with the type of society we have built. It's one of the reasons I believe in separation of church and state.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think that abortion should be legal where there's an absence of a heart beat. I think this is a good balance even though I agree with the spirit of your post.

I’m unsure why it wouldn’t be congruent (abortion wasn’t always legal), nor why that incongruence is a sufficient reason not to change society. Drawing the line at the heart beat needs justification, for you’d still be terminating the life of something human and human rights are intrinsic.

 

[SMillard]

Title X does not allow federal funds to be used for abortions. Medicaid, however, does allow government money to be spent on them — in very restricted cases.

The 1977 Hyde Amendment dictated that federal Medicaid funds could only be used to fund abortions in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. However, some states have expanded cases in which they will provide funds. Currently, 17 states allow funds to be used for "medically necessary" abortions. In those cases that these states count as medically necessary but that are not permitted by the federal guidelines, states cover the cost alone.

Thank you, didn't know about the Medicaid issue. I'd venture to guess that in total the federal funds are pretty small based on that information.

 

[dontsnitch]

I’m unsure why it wouldn’t be congruent (abortion wasn’t always legal), nor why that incongruence is a sufficient reason not to change society. Drawing the line at the heart beat needs justification, for your still be terminating the life of something human and human rights are intrinsic.

I'm saying that the West is a society where the government allows people to make mistakes, even harmful ones. If you're saying that the morning after pill is immoral, for example, I can see your point. If you're saying it should be illegal because it's immoral, I don't agree.

I think a heart beat, while somewhat arbitrary, is a realistic metric for life. It's a good balance between conception and birth that still allows society to function. A society where everyone who gets pregnant gives birth would be chaos.

 

[SMillard]

I'm saying that the West is a society where the government allows people to make mistakes, even harmful ones. If you're saying that the morning after pill is immoral, for example, I can see your point. If you're saying it should be illegal because it's immoral, I don't agree.

I think a heart beat, while somewhat arbitrary, is a realistic metric for life. It's a good balance between conception and birth that still allows society to function. A society where everyone who gets pregnant gives birth would be chaos.

The heartbeat definition raises other questions. What about someone on life support that needs medical equipment to breath and feeding tubes to eat. The person could technically be brain dead but they have a heartbeat, does this mean that the family and/or medical staff can't pull the plug? That's why I feel that the dependence issue should be taken into consideration, if the fetus could survive without the mother than I could see a stronger argument but from a pragmatic standpoint the mother is acting as a biological life support system.

 

[Super Mikey]

I'm saying that the West is a society where the government allows people to make mistakes, even harmful ones. If you're saying that the morning after pill is immoral, for example, I can see your point. If you're saying it should be illegal because it's immoral, I don't agree.

I think a heart beat, while somewhat arbitrary, is a realistic metric for life. It's a good balance between conception and birth that still allows society to function. A society where everyone who gets pregnant gives birth would be chaos.

Consider your last sentence. Why would it be chaos?

 

[dontsnitch]

The heartbeat definition raises other questions. What about someone on life support that needs medical equipment to breath and feeding tubes to eat. The person could technically be brain dead but they have a heartbeat, does this mean that the family and/or medical staff can't pull the plug? That's why I feel that the dependence issue should be taken into consideration, if the fetus could survive without the mother than I could see a stronger argument but from a pragmatic standpoint the mother is acting as a biological life support system.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think we need to apply the heartbeat metric to people who are already out of the womb. It would be silly to suggest that during a heart transplant there is a moment where the patient no longer has a claim to life.

I don't like the argument that the fetus is a parasite. Be that as it may, it's still a life. Viability has never resonated well with me.

 

[dontsnitch]

Consider your last sentence. Why would it be chaos?

I suppose it would only be chaotic until people adapt and stop being sexually reckless. Though fringe cases of rape and incest would never cease to create chaos. I think it's the same as the welfare state; it may be good in the long run to eliminate it, but it's going to create a lot of pain in the meantime.

 

[SMillard]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think we need to apply the heartbeat metric to people who are already out of the womb. It would be silly to suggest that during a heart transplant there is a moment where the patient no longer has a claim to life.

I don't like the argument that the fetus is a parasite. Be that as it may, it's still a life. Viability has never resonated well with me.

I get it, but honestly it isn't just the fetus that is a parasite, that pretty much carries on until the kid is in their early teens and in some cases long after that. So it isn't as simple as that.
My point though is that if you took the woman out of the equation would it live? They can artificially inseminate an egg but they have to put it into a woman's womb for it to develop at some point. Even if they created artificial wombs (which I believe has been done on limited levels for some animals) the fetus is a dependant organism. Should the organism that is supporting it choose not to perform that task anymore, does that equate to murder? For me it doesn't, but for others it does and that's fine. I just don't think one person's morality should be forced on another.

 

[Super Mikey]

I suppose it would only be chaotic until people adapt and stop being sexually reckless. Though fringe cases of rape and incest would never cease to create chaos. I think it's the same as the welfare state; it may be good in the long run to eliminate it, but it's going to create a lot of pain in the meantime.

You keep calling it chaos, but you’re not telling me why.

In any case, I understand that people make mistakes, and that the state and society should recognize that. However, that does not mean that we can ignore rights, particularly right to life, because it is a foundational right and it life is the precondition for achieving all goods. So if the fetus, or the in-womb child has the right to life, then that should triumph. The “right” to make mistakes shouldn’t imply the right to take the life of another.

That brings us to heart beats. The privation of a heart beat for a human being is a fine measurement of when life ends, but it is not a condition of when life begins. Upon conception, the zygote is alive, biologically complete and numerically identical to the adult he becomes. It might be useful for you to treat life otherwise, but it wouldn’t be true.

 

[dontsnitch]

I get it, but honestly it isn't just the fetus that is a parasite, that pretty much carries on until the kid is in their early teens and in some cases long after that. So it isn't as simple as that.
My point though is that if you took the woman out of the equation would it live? They can artificially inseminate an egg but they have to put it into a woman's womb for it to develop at some point. Even if they created artificial wombs (which I believe has been done on limited levels for some animals) the fetus is a dependant organism. Should the organism that is supporting it choose not to perform that task anymore, does that equate to murder? For me it doesn't, but for others it does and that's fine. I just don't think one person's morality should be forced on another.

Right, but because the fetus is a so-called parasite long into childhood surely doesn't mean that we can treat a child the same as a fetus. If a woman decides that she doesn't want to take care of her toddler anymore, yes, it's murder, even if she just passively walks away, because the toddler can't fend for itself.

I wholeheartedly agree that personal morality should not be legislated, which is why I support the separation of church and state.

I really don't have this figured out, I'm just toying with the heart beat metric because it seems like a good balance. Maybe this is a middle ground fallacy, I'm not sure.

 

[Super Mikey]

I get it, but honestly it isn't just the fetus that is a parasite, that pretty much carries on until the kid is in their early teens and in some cases long after that. So it isn't as simple as that.
My point though is that if you took the woman out of the equation would it live? They can artificially inseminate an egg but they have to put it into a woman's womb for it to develop at some point. Even if they created artificial wombs (which I believe has been done on limited levels for some animals) the fetus is a dependant organism. Should the organism that is supporting it choose not to perform that task anymore, does that equate to murder? For me it doesn't, but for others it does and that's fine. I just don't think one person's morality should be forced on another.

The fetus is a parasite? Noooooo. That’s absurd. Women’s bodies are directed toward the end of reproduction, which encompasses space and care for the fetus. Why do you think sex, the ovaries, f. Tubes, womb, placenta, etc. are for, exactly?

Parasite/host relations do not have that sort of directionality.

 

[Pessimystic]

I don't know what Roe vs Wade is all about, the rest of the world hasn't heard of this.
As far as abortions go, males simply don't have the right to tell a female she MUST carry on with a pregnancy, it's totally ridiculous for any guy to believe they have that right to tell them.

A fetus isn't a human being, and even if it were surely it's up to the female to say yay or nay about something growing inside of her body? If i were able to get pregnant i'm damn sure i'd want that right!

I'm not going to get involved in an abortion argument, because why?
But, I never understood the whole "the fetus isn't a human being" deal. If someone pushes a woman down the stairs and kills the baby, that person can be charged with murder in 38 states.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

 

[dontsnitch]

You keep calling it chaos, but you’re not telling me why.

In any case, I understand that people make mistakes, and that the state and society should recognize that. However, that does not mean that we can ignore rights, particularly right to life, because it is a foundational right and it life is the precondition for achieving all goods. So if the fetus, or the in-womb child has the right to life, then that should triumph. The “right” to make mistakes shouldn’t imply the right to take the life of another.

That brings us to heart beats. The privation of a heart beat for a human being is a fine measurement of when life ends, but it is not a condition of when life begins. Upon conception, the zygote is alive, biologically complete and numerically identical to the adult he becomes. It might be useful for you to treat life otherwise, but it wouldn’t be true.

I think it would be chaotic for the simple reason that there would be a lot of unwanted pregnancies and that people would have to look at sex differently. Some of this is arguably a good thing.

The zygote is alive, granted, but so is sperm. It may not be "biologically complete and numerically identical", but I don't think we should treat sperm, zygotes, fetuses, babies, and adults, as being the same just because they're all life.

I don't want to be the guy that argues from the fringes, but if you are taking an absolute position against abortion, do you think rape victims, especially when they're children, should be forced to give birth?

 

[SMillard]

The fetus is a parasite? Noooooo. That’s absurd. Women’s bodies are directed toward the end of reproduction, which encompasses space and care for the fetus. Why do you think sex, the ovaries, f. Tubes, womb, placenta, etc. are for, exactly?

Parasite/host relations do not have that sort of directionality.

The biology isn't the issue, it's the choice of the host. What is the recourse when the woman who is pregnant doesn't want the child, knows the child is the result of a rape or incest or has been given information regarding a physical or mental abnormality?

Men's bodies are directed toward the end of reproduction as well, but with as many partners as possible like all mammals. We have created artificial social norms of monogamy, so the argument that "if a woman gets pregnant it's her biological duty to carry the child to term doesn't hold water. Additionally the mortality rate of women in childbirth was fairly high until the advent of medical sciences.

again, it all comes down to your morality and the justification to impose your morals on others, which I don't believe you nor I have. I have my beliefs, but I don't believe I have the right to impose those beliefs on others, some of you on here feel you do....

 

[Super Mikey]

The biology isn't the issue, it's the choice of the host. What is the recourse when the woman who is pregnant doesn't want the child, knows the child is the result of a rape or incest or has been given information regarding a physical or mental abnormality?

Men's bodies are directed toward the end of reproduction as well, but with as many partners as possible like all mammals. We have created artificial social norms of monogamy, so the argument that "if a woman gets pregnant it's her biological duty to carry the child to term doesn't hold water. Additionally the mortality rate of women in childbirth was fairly high until the advent of medical sciences.

again, it all comes down to your morality and the justification to impose your morals on others, which I don't believe you nor I have. I have my beliefs, but I don't believe I have the right to impose those beliefs on others, some of you on here feel you do....

What baffles me here is that being a parasite is just a matter of subjective desire rather than any objective relationship between the baby and mother. Thus, one fetus can be a parasite while another is not despite the fact that their objective relationships to the mother (what you call the “host”) is the same. Moreover, the same fetus can oscillate between being a parasite and a non-parasite if the mother (“host”) continuously changes her mind. This is, at best, a political conception of the term parasite, and its justification is unknown to me.

Regarding the rest of your post, you misunderstood me. The point about the directionality of the woman’s body is just to show that the fetus is not a parasite. It does not show that there are “biological duties” (what the heck is a biological duty?) , nor even that the mother should not abort.

Regarding imposition of belief, you are reasoning naively. Laws legislate values and moralities ( law has much to say about harm and how we should raise children, for example). The question is not whether laws should legislate morality; the question is whose morality should be legislated.

 

[SMillard]

What baffles me here is that being a parasite is just a matter of subjective desire rather than any objective relationship between the baby and mother. Thus, one fetus can be a parasite while another is not despite the fact that their objective relationships to the mother (what you call the “host”) is the same. Moreover, the same fetus can oscillate between being a parasite and a non-parasite if the mother (“host”) continuously changes her mind. This is, at best, a political conception of the term parasite, and its justification is unknown to me.

Regarding the rest of your post, you misunderstood me. The point about the directionality of the woman’s body is just to show that the fetus is not a parasite. It does not show that there are “biological duties” (what the heck is a biological duty?) , nor even that the mother should not abort.

Regarding imposition of belief, you are reasoning naively. Laws legislate values and moralities ( law has much to say about harm and how we should raise children, for example). The question is not whether laws should legislate morality; the question is whose morality should be legislated.

don't like my views, want to impose your morality and belief on me and when you fail you resort to stating my reasoning is naive. You basically lost me, good bye aaaaaaaannnnnnndddddd Piss off!

 

[Super Mikey]

I think it would be chaotic for the simple reason that there would be a lot of unwanted pregnancies and that people would have to look at sex differently. Some of this is arguably a good thing.

The zygote is alive, granted, but so is sperm. It may not be "biologically complete and numerically identical", but I don't think we should treat sperm, zygotes, fetuses, babies, and adults, as being the same just because they're all life.

I don't want to be the guy that argues from the fringes, but if you are taking an absolute position against abortion, do you think rape victims, especially when they're children, should be forced to give birth?

Sperm cells are not human organisms: They do not have the nature of a human being, nor will they develop into an adult human being if given sufficient time and nurture. Zygotes and fetuses do have human natures and they will develop into adult human beings if given the time and nurturing necessary. Hence, sperm and zygotes are not the same thing, obviously, nor even comparable.

Unless the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, no abortion. If it does, then only indirect abortion is permitted.

 

[Super Mikey]

don't like my views, want to impose your morality and belief on me and when you fail you resort to stating my reasoning is naive. You basically lost me, good bye aaaaaaaannnnnnndddddd Piss off!

That is not a fair assessment of tne exchange. And you know that.

 

[SMillard]

That is not a fair assessment of tne exchange. And you know that.

It's a perfectly fair assessment, I've had productive conversations with other people in this thread that I don't share their views. While I don't agree with them I respect their views, you show no such level of respect you push your morality and wish to make it the law of the land. You dismiss my views as naive simply because they don't conform to yours.

There is nothing productive about talking to you so from this point on, so piss off.

 

[dontsnitch]

Sperm cells are not human organisms: They do not have the nature of a human being, nor will they develop into an adult human being if given sufficient time and nurture. Zygotes and fetuses do have human natures and they will develop into adult human beings if given the time and nurturing necessary. Hence, sperm and zygotes are not the same thing, obviously, nor even comparable.

Unless the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, no abortion. If it does, then only indirect abortion is permitted.

You make a strong argument.

Have you ever read Sagan's essay on abortion? In his words:

A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise the full genetic blueprint for a human being. Under certain circumstances, after fertilization, they can develop into a baby. But most fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried. Development into a baby is by no means guaranteed. Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult. So if a sperm and egg are as human as the fertilized egg produced by their union, and if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg--despite the fact that it's only potentially a baby--why isn't it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg?