On abortion

[Topper]

Name an instance where society claims a superior right over a man s body.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Topper]

It is an issue of a mother having the liberty to determine what happens to her body versus society claiming it has a superior right ro stop her.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[smokymountainrain]

AA

I understand your point but you must admit determining when an unborn has rights that trump the mother s is difficult to administer given its floating nature.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Maybe I shouldn't enter the fray so late in the discussion, but I find your comment here puzzling. It's not about the unborn's right's trumping the mother's rights. It's not an issue the mother's life vs the baby's life.

It's an issue of whether we require the mother to finish her pregnancy, go to the hospital and deliver the baby, allowing the baby to live or whether we allow the mother to avoid those things and instead allow her to end the unborn baby's life. If we choose the former, that doesn't mean the baby's rights trump the mother's rights (does it?), it simply means the baby's life trumps the mother's inconvenience.

[Moliere]

I can't think of a single restriction that doesn't have the potential to become really messy very easily in its application. Maybe some sort of mandatory education or waiting period prior to the procedure?

I can't think of any either. What about timing? At what point do you think it's no longer okay to terminate a fetus? Anytime prior to cutting the cord?

[Topper]

AA

I understand your point but you must admit determining when an unborn has rights that trump the mother s is difficult to administer given its floating nature.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Topper]

Education requirements have been struck down.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Pelado]

I can't think of a single restriction that doesn't have the potential to become really messy very easily in its application. Maybe some sort of mandatory education or waiting period prior to the procedure?

Isn't that currently the case - that there has to be education of alternatives and then a day or so waiting period? Is that just in certain states, or is it not at all how it currently works?

[All-American]

Forget the P&F example! It's absurd to call a fetus a "child". That's all I was pointing out.
I've given you plenty of meaningful distinctions between a fetus and a baby, namely the most important and significant physiologic that occurs during the entire process, save perhaps fertilization. I'm still waiting for you to provide me some useful alternative cutoff that constitutes an appropriate beginning of rights that would outweigh mother's right to abort a pregnancy, in what cases you would grant an exception and why. It's extraordinarily messy to do that (notice the people who actually work in this arena tend to be pro-choice, as they have witnessed just how complicated these situations often get--far more commonly than the 40 week abortion you keep wanting to legislate around).

Listen--I don't like abortion. I think it should be rare, and yes, that based on my gut feeling. But I also think it should be legal.

It's only absurd if you find any of the distinctions you point out meaningful. I don't. Not even Roe thought a fetus has no right to life; it simply weighed that right against a mother's right to terminate the pregnancy and picked a point where the former outweighed the latter. Nobody argues that the decision was not arbitrary; a great many have argued that the decision was wrong. You are pretty far afield, though, when you argue that they simply picked too early a point, and that the right to choose prevails over the right to live up until birth.

[ERCougar]

Legal in any case or would you put some restrictions around its use?

I can't think of a single restriction that doesn't have the potential to become really messy very easily in its application. Maybe some sort of mandatory education or waiting period prior to the procedure?

[Moliere]

Listen--I don't like abortion. I think it should be rare, and yes, that based on my gut feeling. But I also think it should be legal.

Legal in any case or would you put some restrictions around its use?

[ERCougar]

Why is there no such thing as a child/baby/infant/person "in utero"? The only reasons you have given are that a born baby is able to live independently, yet you aren't willing to include a baby at 40 weeks in utero even though in the vast majority of cases the baby will live and the complications from performing a birth are less than those of performing an abortion. The other reason you gave is that a baby in utero isn't able to laugh at Phineas and Ferb.

I am still waiting for a meaningful distinction for denying basic rights to a baby at 40 weeks in utero vs a baby that is just born. I get it if you just feel differently but don't act like you have anything more than a gut feeling that you appear to hold disdain for when others have a differing opinion based on opinion.

Forget the P&F example! It's absurd to call a fetus a "child". That's all I was pointing out.
I've given you plenty of meaningful distinctions between a fetus and a baby, namely the most important and significant physiologic that occurs during the entire process, save perhaps fertilization. I'm still waiting for you to provide me some useful alternative cutoff that constitutes an appropriate beginning of rights that would outweigh mother's right to abort a pregnancy, in what cases you would grant an exception and why. It's extraordinarily messy to do that (notice the people who actually work in this arena tend to be pro-choice, as they have witnessed just how complicated these situations often get--far more commonly than the 40 week abortion you keep wanting to legislate around).

Listen--I don't like abortion. I think it should be rare, and yes, that based on my gut feeling. But I also think it should be legal.

[Northwestcoug]

Imanihonjin must be disappointed. Here he is today, on two threads discussing some of the major moral issues of the day, offering solid critiques of those who disagree with him, yet no one will tell him just when a baby is a baby! Come on people, just give him the truth from on high and he'll be satisfied!

I'll leave it up to JL on the other thread to answer his well-reasoned objections to man-made climate change. But so far, no one has satisfied him...

[imanihonjin]

No. I'm just pointing out (again) that a fetus is not a child. Dumb example, but I don't know how many different ways I can explain it before AA will stop being (intentionally) sloppy with his language.

Uhhhh, your reason that the fetus is not a child because it can't understand the humor of Phineas and Ferb is about as sloppy as it comes. It's fine that you don't want to call the fetus a child, I get it, you have to do it that way in order for your logic to be sound. Why are you so upset if someone chooses to recognize them as a child/person?

[imanihonjin]

Legally, no. Morally, perhaps. Different question.

And goodness, I don't know how many ways to explain this to you, so I'll just try this: There is no such thing as a child/baby/infant/person "in utero".
It matters on all kinds of levels, including the legal one, but also some very important physiologic ones.
Thank goodness attorneys aren't in charge of medicine. Yet.

Why is there no such thing as a child/baby/infant/person "in utero"? The only reasons you have given are that a born baby is able to live independently, yet you aren't willing to include a baby at 40 weeks in utero even though in the vast majority of cases the baby will live and the complications from performing a birth are less than those of performing an abortion. The other reason you gave is that a baby in utero isn't able to laugh at Phineas and Ferb.

I am still waiting for a meaningful distinction for denying basic rights to a baby at 40 weeks in utero vs a baby that is just born. I get it if you just feel differently but don't act like you have anything more than a gut feeling that you appear to hold disdain for when others have a differing opinion based on opinion.

[ERCougar]

Yeah because a 1 week old baby loves to do all of those things. Are you implying that your standard of whether someone should be afforded rights is based on whether or not they like to play games, watch TV, or understand the humor of Phineas and Ferb. If that isn't what you were implying then what exactly were you saying?

No. I'm just pointing out (again) that a fetus is not a child. Dumb example, but I don't know how many different ways I can explain it before AA will stop being (intentionally) sloppy with his language.