Abortion discussions and debates

[Guest]

@unixknight In response to, "Indeed.  Of course, now that we have partial-birth abortions, the effort to draw that line has become meaningless anyway," I just want to say that's another huge facet of the abortion issue, and in my mind ought to be a topic all by itself. So far I've meant to limit the scope of my remarks to a point raised by PrisonChaplain to MormonGator about 12-Wk gestation--along with a specific post by Anatess2.  Of course I know that it's impossible to keep any thread within a set parameter, and this one is certainly no exception.

[unixknight]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure; no solution is going to be perfect.  But I'm not aware that we had a slough of pre-Roe bogus rape allegations; and if we make it easier to relinquish for adoption while simultaneously beefing up penalties (both criminal and civil) for demonstrably false allegations, I think we can craft a liveable balance.

Part of the reason I've been sort of playing devil's advocate is that with a situation like this, an imperfect solution isn't going to be good enough to last long.  People who want 100% unrestricted access to abortion aren't going to sit still for that, and will use every false allegation as an example of why the system isn't working.  Especially if there are examples of women who went to prison for that murder when it turns out later - whoops, she really had been raped after all. 

At the same time, the pro-life side is still going to maintain that even if a woman is provably raped, that doesn't justify killing the unborn baby for what his/her father did. 

Personally, I regard an abortion performed on a child from rape to be doubling down on the tragedy. 

[anatess2]

37 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

May I join you in this part of the debate?  I'll make some presumptions and you tell me if we're on the same page, alright?  I presume you do not assert that a "human egg" is a human being nor that a human sperm is a human being.  I my presumption correct?  Do you assert that a fertilized egg is a human being?

The Catholics believe that Life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg.  No, it doesn't have to be implanted on the uterus at that point.  This is the point of Creation where the body AND the spirit simultaneously exists.  This is easy to legislate since the sperm fertilizing the egg is a scientifically observable event.

The LDS (for which I'm one) believe that Life begins when the spirit joins the body sometime between conception and birth.  Of course, this is not as easily legislated because you can't legislate Faith unless you can tie it to a societal good. 

So, how do LDS express their Faith through Legislation?  Well, there's the pro-Choice way - where they leave the decision to the mother and her clergy and her doctor... and there's the pro-Life way - where they take the decision out of the mother/clergy/doctor and put it on the rule of law.

As you can see, the When Does Life Begin question is the crux of the matter.  Not abortion.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

... The LDS (for which I'm one) believe that Life begins when the spirit joins the body sometime between conception and birth.  Of course, this is not as easily legislated because you can't legislate Faith unless you can tie it to a societal good. 

So, how do LDS express their Faith through Legislation?  Well, there's the pro-Choice way - where they leave the decision to the mother and her clergy and her doctor... and there's the pro-Life way - where they take the decision out of the mother/clergy/doctor and put it on the rule of law.

As you can see, the When Does Life Begin question is the crux of the matter.  Not abortion.

I'm fine with limiting our discussion to this crux. We agree to agree that ensoulment occurs some time after conception and before (or at) birth. In the spirit of PrisonChaplain's intentions for starting this thread how shall we proceed from here? We're still left without certainty about when we're talking about a human being or a potential human being. 

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Makes sense, though I can imagine the backlash when people perceive that as putting a victim on trial.  Ultimately, the only truly conclusive proof of consent would have to be a recording of the actual encounter, which is hardly a practical solution...

Not so much as you might think; we all carry recording devices around all the time, and it's not going to be any farther away than the pants, which are usually at least in the same room.  For that matter, even carrying it to the bed (or whatever) isn't a stretch, (since many can't stand to be out of arm's reach of it for any reason) nor is fiddling with it "to turn off the ringer" during the lead-up to the act.

Of course, then you have the black-out drunk women who may legitimately have no recollection of consenting, (whether they're capable of consent under that circumstance is a whole different can of worms - personally I'm of the opinion that if you voluntarily become intoxicated, your actions, including voicing consent, while intoxicated are still fully your responsibility) in which case I'd look at a reduction of the charge, but IMO, the punishment for a false accusation should always carry at least the same penalty as the crime one is alleging, and in the hypothetical case in question, should be significantly enhanced by the use of that false charge to commit another crime.

[unixknight]

@NightSG

And when one of the parties doesn't consent to the recording?  Every state varies, but in some, like MD, audio recording without 2 party consent where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists is a felony.  Sooooo if you record your encounter and she didn't consent, even if it proves your innocence, it will not only be inadmissible in court but now you may well be facing a new felony charge for "wiretapping."

So in theory that solution might work, but in actual practice... 

I'm not trying to give you a hard time here... just illustrating that this is an immensely complex problem with no simple solutions... and the devil is in the details.

Edited April 18, 2016 by unixknight

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, UT.starscoper said:

I'm fine with limiting our discussion to this crux. We agree to agree that ensoulment occurs some time after conception and before (or at) birth. In the spirit of PrisonChaplain's intentions for starting this thread how shall we proceed from here? We're still left without certainty about when we're talking about a human being or a potential human being. 

Yes, that's why it's a debate... because there's no certainty.

What I'm answering to the PC's OP on this one is the "middle ground".  The middle ground is to junk the pro-choice/pro-life debate.  The middle ground is to shift to the When Does Life Begin debate.  Gain a consensus on that.  Colorado tried to pass a Personhood bill a couple years ago (or was it last year?)... it failed in State Congress.  Let's keep the debate there and forget about abortion.

Florida has a law that if you kill a pregnant woman that results in the death of the baby, you killed 2 people.  Hillary - avowed pro-choicer - called the fetus a Person just a few weeks ago.  There ya go... then, in this debate, try to keep it on the respectful, reasoned give-to-Ceasar way instead of flooding it with tons of vitriol.  Then it's like a Do-over.  Clean Slate.

Edited April 18, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

@anatess2 Let's say I am of the opinion that ensoulment doesn't occur during the first Trimester.  If you agree, it would narrow the debate.  Do you have an opinion on that?

[NightSG]

47 minutes ago, unixknight said:

@NightSG

And when one of the parties doesn't consent to the recording?  Every state varies, but in some, like MD, audio recording without 2 party consent where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists is a felony.  Sooooo if you record your encounter and she didn't consent, even if it proves your innocence, it will not only be inadmissible in court but now you may well be facing a new felony charge for "wiretapping."

So in theory that solution might work, but in actual practice...

It's not that hard to avoid having sex in Maryland; I've managed to not do it all my life and don't feel like I've missed out on anything.  (Granted, I was 14 the last time I was there, but I did meet a girl there that I eventually dated for a while after we both got back to a rational part of the country.)  Texas is a lot more reasonable in that you don't have any expectation of privacy from someone you're talking to.  If you don't want there to be clear evidence you said something, just don't say it in the first place.

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

@anatess2 Let's say I am of the opinion that ensoulment doesn't occur during the first Trimester.  If you agree, it would narrow the debate.  Do you have an opinion on that?

I disagree.  And yes, I have an opinion on everything.

Ensoulment is completely up to God.  Nobody, not even you, can tell Him not to put a soul on a 1-day-old fetus.

Edited April 18, 2016 by anatess2

[NightSG]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I disagree.  And yes, I have an opinion on everything.

Ensoulment is completely up to God.  Nobody, not even you, can tell Him not to put a soul on a 1-day-old fetus.

I disagree.  Anyone can tell Him anything.  Getting Him to comply would be a much more impressive feat.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And yes, I have an opinion on everything.

 

1) We all do, that's why we are here. 
2) Most people who don't have strong opinions one way or the other aren't thinking. 

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

1) We all do, that's why we are here. 
2) Most people who don't have strong opinions one way or the other aren't thinking. 

Or a die-hard pacifist.

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, NightSG said:

I disagree.  Anyone can tell Him anything.  Getting Him to comply would be a much more impressive feat.

NightSG, you just won the internet.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Or a die-hard pacifist.

Even a die hard pacifist has strong opinions about well, pacifism. The difference is that most people on the left think they are open minded and non judgmental when in reality they are quite so.  

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Or a die-hard pacifist.

Even a die hard pacifist has strong opinions about well, pacifism. The difference is that most people on the left think they are open minded and non judgmental when in reality they are quite so.  

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, NightSG said:

I disagree.  Anyone can tell Him anything.  Getting Him to comply would be a much more impressive feat.

NightSG, you just won the internet.

[NightSG]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

NightSG, you just won the internet.

Good. My home connection is slow, so can I get someone to back it all up on CDs and mail it to me?

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I disagree.  And yes, I have an opinion on everything.  Ensoulment is completely up to God.  Nobody, not even you, can tell Him not to put a soul on a 1-day-old fetus.

I can't think of why you would say that not even I can tell God not to put a soul on a 1-day old fetus, because of course I wouldn't presume to.  But imagining that God would be fairly consistent seemed reasonable to me when I made my supposition, and I've been wrong before about a lot of things. If our objective were to attempt to find a point of agreement with regard to  the "crux" how would you choose to proceed?

[Traveler]

Sometimes with an issue like abortion we get two involved with treating the wrong problem.   The problem begins long before there is any thought of abortion.  In essence I am saying abortion is an abuse of women and mothers - an abuse that has roots in the conditions by which a woman becomes pregnant and less on how to solve the abuse once pregnancy has occurred.

For example – I wonder why death of the baby is so acceptable (a demand) to pro-choice and not to demand or allow the death of that male that is abusing their fatherhood and thus caused the pregnancy in the first place. 

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

7 hours ago, UT.starscoper said:

A key phrase in your remarks above is "if we're right".  I say this because there are differing views on these points just as there are on so many other aspects of the overall abortion issue.  For example many people--whether we label them pro-life or pro-choice--will say that a human blastocyst is like other masses of human cells; but it is not a human being. This leads to the disagreements about ensoulment and when it occurs. 

Considering that human life may be on the line, should we not err on the side of life?  You have the product of human conception growing. We know that a baby is forming.  Is it not on the side of those denying life to prove their case?

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I wonder why death of the baby is so acceptable (a demand) to pro-choice and not to demand or allow the death of that male that is abusing their fatherhood and thus caused the pregnancy in the first place. 

Abortion is, indeed, capital punishment for the sins of the father (and mother, too). But the sentence is carried out on the only innocent party in the affair.

But we have, in USmerica, a constitutional prohibition against [working] a corruption of blood, at least in cases of treason (the only crime named in the Document). That is, the sins of the fathers shall not be visited on the heads of his child.

Lehi

[Guest]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Considering that human life may be on the line, should we not err on the side of life?  You have the product of human conception growing. We know that a baby is forming.  Is it not on the side of those denying life to prove their case?

Perhaps our opponents would answer that since we ourselves remarked, "if we're right", then it is just as much on our side to prove our case as we say it is on their side to prove theirs. And to say we "have the product of human conception growing" is merely to state the obvious fact which nobody disputes.  Perhaps our opponents would counter that the point of the abortion is to stop the process of growth before a human life *is* on the line--asserting to us that the result of conception is not a human being but only cells growing, in other words the beginning of a process that a woman may choose she does not want to continue inside her own body.  As I understand the original majority position in Roe v Wade it was the concept of erring on the side of prudence that in part produced the conclusion that during the first Trimester the ultimate decider must be the woman.

[prisonchaplain]

Somebody smarter than me is going to have to explain how "prudence" trumps protecting the-growing-product-of-human-reproduction, given that this life form will certainly become human life, and, at least according to many world religions, already is "ensouled humanity."

[Traveler]

12 hours ago, UT.starscoper said:

Perhaps our opponents would answer that since we ourselves remarked, "if we're right", then it is just as much on our side to prove our case as we say it is on their side to prove theirs. And to say we "have the product of human conception growing" is merely to state the obvious fact which nobody disputes.  Perhaps our opponents would counter that the point of the abortion is to stop the process of growth before a human life *is* on the line--asserting to us that the result of conception is not a human being but only cells growing, in other words the beginning of a process that a woman may choose she does not want to continue inside her own body.  As I understand the original majority position in Roe v Wade it was the concept of erring on the side of prudence that in part produced the conclusion that during the first Trimester the ultimate decider must be the woman.

Actually the position of Roe vs Wade was that during the first trimester it could not be proven that a growing "fetus" does not qualify as living human life - please note that a fetus was argued to be alive, just not yet human by any sense of logic.  But we know that in the third trimester that the life form growing in a woman is alive and can survive outside her womb in essence Human life.  Yet despite whatever measure there is of what is human life - not only are we willing to murder that life but to harvest (cannibalize) it parts.  Since such parts are cannibalized exclusively for humans - how can it be argued that they are not human parts.  Assuming G-d loves humans, how can such a savage society expect G-d to justly preserve it or shelter it from terrorists?

 

The Traveler