Society/Culture The Abortion Thread

Chief

Admin
Dec 1, 1999
78,363
48,275
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Ok, that doesn't really address my point though, does it. My point is not that they didn't base their legislature on the sanctity of life, my point is that banning abortion and permitting the death penalty aren't contradictory.

Let me put it this way: forget what the legislature is, how would you personally justify arguing that executing, let's say, a murderer, is completely the same as aborting an unborn child? I'm not being facetious by the way, nor am I trying to tie you in loops, I'm genuinely interested in your answer.
I wouldn't because they're not.

* Executing a criminal is abhorrent, state sanctioned murder.

* Having an abortion is a medical procedure to stop a foetus becoming a live human. It isn't "killing an unborn child". You're begging the question.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mr_Nyah

All Australian
Dec 7, 2011
905
2,669
Wentz Wagon
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I wouldn't because they're not.

* Executing a criminal is abhorrent, state sanctioned murder.

* Having an abortion is a medical procedure to stop a foetus becoming a live human. It isn't "killing an unborn child". You're begging the question.
I'm not here to tell you what to believe, I just challenged one argument you'd made.

You argued that it's hypocritical for anyone to want to ban abortion on the basis of the sanctity of life while also supporting the death penalty. That means that regardless of whether you think a child is alive or not, it's clear that the people that are making that argument do believe that the child is alive.

Regardless of what you believe, and regardless of whether they're right or wrong, given that these people think the child is alive, please explain how it's hypocritical for them to disagree with killing what they think is a live baby while supporting the death penalty for hardened criminals.
 

Chief

Admin
Dec 1, 1999
78,363
48,275
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
I'm not here to tell you what to believe, I just challenged one argument you'd made.

You argued that it's hypocritical for anyone to want to ban abortion on the basis of the sanctity of life while also supporting the death penalty. That means that regardless of whether you think a child is alive or not, it's clear that the people that are making that argument do believe that the child is alive.

Regardless of what you believe, and regardless of whether they're right or wrong, given that these people think the child is alive, please explain how it's hypocritical for them to disagree with killing what they think is a live baby while supporting the death penalty for hardened criminals.
The argument is that the sanctity of life is paramount.

This is obviously not the case given:
* Death penalty. (see earlier, Google Alabama death penalty)
* Deliberate omission of embryos in storage. (see quote earlier)

I'm not sure what you want after that. The argument is proven at this point:

It's not about the sanctity of life.
 

Mr_Nyah

All Australian
Dec 7, 2011
905
2,669
Wentz Wagon
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The argument is that the sanctity of life is paramount.

This is obviously not the case given:
* Death penalty. (see earlier, Google Alabama death penalty)
* Deliberate omission of embryos in storage. (see quote earlier)

I'm not sure what you want after that. The argument is proven at this point:

It's not about the sanctity of life.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I haven't seen anything from any of your posts that points out how the presence of the death penalty contradicts a sanctity of life argument, despite my having asked you to clarify at least three times now.

I try and make a point of not getting into discussions on this board because generally it's not a good place to debate, and neither of us is going to be able to change the other's view. Thanks for being respectful in discussing though, I appreciate it, and it's been a better discussion then I would have expected. Thanks.
 

Chief

Admin
Dec 1, 1999
78,363
48,275
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I haven't seen anything from any of your posts that points out how the presence of the death penalty contradicts a sanctity of life argument, despite my having asked you to clarify at least three times now.
What more clarification could you need?

The Alabama governor's stated reason for an abortion ban is the sanctity of life - they believe a foetus is an actual living being. Life, they say, is sacred.

This is hypocritical: life to them is not sacred. The state ends people's lives.

Therefore: the abortion ban cannot be about the sanctity of life.

1558670053105.png


Additional: The buggers deliberately omitted fertilised embryos as "life" despite being in the same stage of development as if they were in the female's body. The stated reason "the woman is not pregnant so that doesn't count". This is evidence that the "life" of the foetus is secondary to the control of pregnant women. Can't explain it any clearer than that.



death penalty contradicts a sanctity of life argument
 

its free real estate

fyfe > dangerfield
Jul 30, 2018
8,298
10,161
AFL Club
Fremantle
I wouldn't because they're not.

* Executing a criminal is abhorrent, state sanctioned murder.

* Having an abortion is a medical procedure to stop a foetus becoming a live human. It isn't "killing an unborn child". You're begging the question.
Are you in favour of full term abortions?
 

Maggie5

Moderator
Apr 3, 2010
37,322
34,794
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
You don't want to. The reality is that not everyone who is against abortion is male for starters. Do the females against it want to control women's reproduction? To what end and why? Some attribute their position to religion, sure. Others just pure principle.

Anyone who supports the death penalty and is pro-life is a hypocrite IMO. Won't argue there.
I am not sure that it isn't about control (based on their beliefs). Where is the woman's choice/role in all of this?
Basically we are imposing our beliefs on her to have a forced pregnancy.

I agree that after a certain date abortions should not be carried out say after x weeks (medical profession to decide).

We really don't want to go back to the 60's and the backyard operators.

This article (2014) was an interesting situation (not sure if this is still the case).

A woman considered legally dead under Texas law is being kept alive because she was 14 weeks pregnant at the time of the accident. Against her own desires and those of her husband and parents, the woman is being kept "alive" as a human incubator.

Marlise Machado Munoz is a 33-year-old woman who was 14 weeks pregnant when she suffered a pulmonary embolism while up in the middle of the night to care for her toddler. Her heart stopped and was revived numerous times, but a lack of oxygen resulted in brain-death.

Munoz and her husband were both paramedics. They were intimately aware of brain death and vegetative states. Consequently, Munoz expressed her desire to be removed from life support if she were ever left in a vegetative state.

The state of Texas, however, has no interest in how she would like her body treated. Her body, apparently, belongs to them. Texas law does not allow the removal of life support from a pregnant woman, even if she explicitly states that’s what she wants. That’s right, even if she writes an advanced directive.




 

AbrahamS

Team Captain
May 2, 2019
420
436
AFL Club
GWS
I agree that after a certain date abortions should not be carried out say after x weeks (medical profession to decide).
How about words to the effect of "no abortion if, in a medical professionals determination, that the child has a solid chance of survival out of the womb" as opposed to a set number of weeks?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Maggie5

Moderator
Apr 3, 2010
37,322
34,794
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
How about words to the effect of "no abortion if, in a medical professionals determination, that the child has a solid chance of survival out of the womb" as opposed to a set number of weeks?
Any suggestions welcome as long as it is not, 'no abortion', although I can't imagine many situations where the woman has carried the child say for 6 months and then says 'no thanks'.

Difficult one but I must admit it annoys me greatly when the words, murder, killing and such are used when discussing this topic. (Not you).
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,295
34,472
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
I am not sure that it isn't about control (based on their beliefs). Where is the woman's choice/role in all of this?
Basically we are imposing our beliefs on her to have a forced pregnancy.
The problem I have been trying to articulate (poorly it would seem) is the way the result of abortion law is conflated with the motivation for them existing. I think maybe that describes it more accurately.

To put it as a question: are restrictions on abortion (whether it's from conception or at a designated trimester) motivated by control or is control simply the unavoidable result of lawmaking?

I think if you're going to attribute motivation to the control, you have to explain very explicitly what this hopes to achieve and why it's being done. For example, subjugation of all women as baby-making factories to improve birth rates, or the maintenance of an underclass who can't economically climb the ladder, or pure hatred of women, etc. Throwing the line out of "It's all about control" is the equivalent to a bumper sticker or protest rally sign. It really says nothing of any substance.
 

AbrahamS

Team Captain
May 2, 2019
420
436
AFL Club
GWS
Any suggestions welcome as long as it is not, 'no abortion', although I can't imagine many situations where the woman has carried the child say for 6 months and then says 'no thanks'.

Difficult one but I must admit it annoys me greatly when the words, murder, killing and such are used when discussing this topic. (Not you).
Like most issues, the solution isn't at the extremes.
 

Chief

Admin
Dec 1, 1999
78,363
48,275
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
The problem I have been trying to articulate (poorly it would seem) is the way the result of abortion law is conflated with the motivation for them existing. I think maybe that describes it more accurately.

To put it as a question: are restrictions on abortion (whether it's from conception or at a designated trimester) motivated by control or is control simply the unavoidable result of lawmaking?

I think if you're going to attribute motivation to the control, you have to explain very explicitly what this hopes to achieve and why it's being done. For example, subjugation of all women as baby-making factories to improve birth rates, or the maintenance of an underclass who can't economically climb the ladder, or pure hatred of women, etc. Throwing the line out of "It's all about control" is the equivalent to a bumper sticker or protest rally sign. It really says nothing of any substance.
Why are they motivated to control women? What does the bible say about the place of women in society and the family?
 

Maggie5

Moderator
Apr 3, 2010
37,322
34,794
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
The problem I have been trying to articulate (poorly it would seem) is the way the result of abortion law is conflated with the motivation for them existing. I think maybe that describes it more accurately.

To put it as a question: are restrictions on abortion (whether it's from conception or at a designated trimester) motivated by control or is control simply the unavoidable result of lawmaking?

I think if you're going to attribute motivation to the control, you have to explain very explicitly what this hopes to achieve and why it's being done. For example, subjugation of all women as baby-making factories to improve birth rates, or the maintenance of an underclass who can't economically climb the ladder, or pure hatred of women, etc. Throwing the line out of "It's all about control" is the equivalent to a bumper sticker or protest rally sign. It really says nothing of any substance.
I think I understood where you were coming from, my concern remains as to what extent should lawmakers be involved without taking into consideration the woman's circumstances whether it be physical or emotional.

I don't have a problem with abortion not be carried out after an agreed point (whatever that may be) however it seems lawmakers in the US are also neglecting the education/contraceptive side. They are defunding Planned Parenthood agencies, cut funding to a UN program for women and girls, UNFPA, an agency that promotes family planning in more than 150 countries.
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,295
34,472
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
All I am asking is: Why would religious people be motivated to control women?

Whether you believe it or not, why might they want legal control?
Subjugation is one possibility. But then again how many Christians (just one sect of religious people) so you think really want this? I think you misread the zeitgeist if you think it's a clear majority.

But regardless, that's a potential fraction of a subdivision of a larger group that MAY hold that view as justifying support for banking abortion. Haven't even looked at just a principled view regarding the sanctity of all life yet, which crosses many ideological boundaries itself.
 

chelseacarlton

BLUE it's the Magic Number
Apr 13, 2008
19,129
24,866
So Frang
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
The Anti-Theists
It wouldn't stray from any scientific definition. I think if we're being honest with ourselves, you can't argue that as soon as a fertilised egg starts splitting the cells and multiplying that isn't life. It's just reality.

But that's not the real question. The real question is: at what point do we consider a growing baby inside the womb a person with the same Universal rights as everyone else? That's the tricky one. On one side you have the extreme position of Alabama which you can defend in principle but at the expense of sense and pragmatism. On the other hand we've got NY who open the door for disregarding the rights of a baby that can easily live outside the womb (with support) for very flimsy reasons.

Somewhere between these two makes sense.
Lol
Do you eat cucumbers?
That’s life,right or wrong?
 

Chief

Admin
Dec 1, 1999
78,363
48,275
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
The problem I have been trying to articulate (poorly it would seem) is the way the result of abortion law is conflated with the motivation for them existing. I think maybe that describes it more accurately.
Yes I will cop that.

But when the stated motivation doesn’t match the actions of the lawmakers and supporters of the law, what comes next?

You look at what they claim to be the source of their moral framework.
 

Top Bottom